|
And every frame is a turn.
The amount of actions a player can take per turn is limited by his APM. APM must be spent wisely. Sometimes you will spend all of it on micro, sometimes you will just attack move and then spend it on other things.
You can force your opponent to spend it on certain things. You can put him in a situation where he doesn't have enough APM to deal with every problem (multi pronged drops) . You can use strategies that take more APM to counteract than to perform, giving you a resource advantage (defiler drops in ZvT. Plague on supply depots, or lurkers under swarm).
 
|
It's not turn based, it's real time strategy. Big difference.
Chess is turn based. One guy makes a move, then the other one makes a move. However, I think chess is more procedurally turn based by the obvious semantics of the game, when people gloss over the complexity and subtleties that each guy is experiencing, even when it's not their turn. Just because someone is attacking you doesn't mean you have to defend, etc. Chess is more RTS to me than turn based.
Tennis is turn based. The ball goes back and forth.
Soccer can be seen as being somewhat turn based. One team has the ball, the other defends, then the other team gets it and counterattacks, etc.
But in Starcraft, both sides essentially "have the ball" all the time. That's a very simple way to put it. Just because someone is attacking you doesn't mean you are forced to defend, you can attack back. You can ignore some of the things your opponent does and focus on your own plans. It isn't the black and white vision of "attack, defend, counter", there is a lot of gray area.
|
|
|
On October 24 2012 05:44 EffervescentAureola wrote:
It's not turn based, it's real time strategy. Big difference.
Chess is turn based. One guy makes a move, then the other one makes a move. However, I think chess is more procedurally turn based by the obvious semantics of the game, when people gloss over the complexity and subtleties that each guy is experiencing, even when it's not their turn. Just because someone is attacking you doesn't mean you have to defend, etc. Chess is more RTS to me than turn based.
Tennis is turn based. The ball goes back and forth.
Soccer can be seen as being somewhat turn based. One team has the ball, the other defends, then the other team gets it and counterattacks, etc.
But in Starcraft, both sides essentially "have the ball" all the time. That's a very simple way to put it. Just because someone is attacking you doesn't mean you are forced to defend, you can attack back. You can ignore some of the things your opponent does and focus on your own plans. It isn't the black and white vision of "attack, defend, counter", there is a lot of gray area.
You can have a turn based game in which both players take actions during the same turn. Soccer isn't turn based, because reality doesn't run in frames. StarCraft does. Nothing happens in between frames. One frame passes, things happen. Another frame passes, things happen, and so on.
Also, I think you missed the point. Of course it's a real time strategy game. That's how we humans experience it. But to a computer, it's turn based. Technically, it has turns. 60 of them each second.
|
Then we could generalize that everything on PC is turn based!
|
I don't think your definition of "turn based" is correct.
|
On October 24 2012 05:56 fabiano wrote:
Then we could generalize that everything on PC is turn based!
I know. Mind = blown, right?
|
turn based game implies you and your opponent take turns
but in rts both you and your opponent can make a move in the same frame. so you "take turns" at the same time. that's not really turn based.
|
Bisutopia19299 Posts
On October 24 2012 05:44 EffervescentAureola wrote:
It's not turn based, it's real time strategy. Big difference.
Chess is turn based. One guy makes a move, then the other one makes a move. However, I think chess is more procedurally turn based by the obvious semantics of the game, when people gloss over the complexity and subtleties that each guy is experiencing, even when it's not their turn. Just because someone is attacking you doesn't mean you have to defend, etc. Chess is more RTS to me than turn based.
Tennis is turn based. The ball goes back and forth.
Soccer can be seen as being somewhat turn based. One team has the ball, the other defends, then the other team gets it and counterattacks, etc.
But in Starcraft, both sides essentially "have the ball" all the time. That's a very simple way to put it. Just because someone is attacking you doesn't mean you are forced to defend, you can attack back. You can ignore some of the things your opponent does and focus on your own plans. It isn't the black and white vision of "attack, defend, counter", there is a lot of gray area.
I don't think the person got it.
I think a lot of house have had a similar thought Mr. Toast. 
|
I don't think everything that can be divided to some arbitary "turns" should be classified as turn based. After all, "reality", as you put it, is dividable into sections or turns. "Real time" and "turn based" (what I take you mean by turn based) actually become indistinguishable from each other when you choose the lenght of the "turn" to be short enough that no complete action fits into a single turn. Is starcraft "turn based" for a slow computer too? If the computer is slow enough not to be able to constantly make all the decisions it theoretically could and should for each turn, then how does it differ from the elusive "real time" for the said computer?
Rather than calling everything that happens in turns turn based, we should look at what being based on turns means.
Usually, turn based games are taken to mean games where actions are divided into set "turns" where the rules define what can and can't happen inside of one turn. The major difference to rts-games is that you are given an amount of time to think about your actions each turn. The amount of time spent executing the actions is decidedly shorter than the time spent thinking. Does this hold for SC? No. Unless you think 1/60th of a second (if that's even what the actual command rate server side is) is a time that can be considered being reserved for thinking. Instead the time is (depending on the player and the situation) somewhat randomly divided between the thought process and the execution of those actions.
Another way of looking at turn based games is considering the fact that usually in turn based games the amount of actions inside of a turn is limited somehow. In chess for example we usually get to move a single piece on the board each turn. Also, the pieces on the board move invidually. Not at the same time. There are turn based games where at the end of each turn, every players actions are simultaneously executed. But even in those games, the amount of actions per turn is somehow limited. More importantly every good player is expected to use all or most of the possible actions in each turn. This is decisively different from what goes on in an rts-game.
For example, in SC2 there is a huge difference between the amount of actions that it is possible to do and what even the best players can achieve. This isn't exactly the same thing as APM. Besides the execution of the actions there is also a thought process behind them. The more strategically complex the situation the bigger the amount of time that is used on the reasoning part, instead of the acting.
|
|
|
On October 24 2012 05:48 vOdToasT wrote:
You can have a turn based game in which both players take actions during the same turn. Soccer isn't turn based, because reality doesn't run in frames. StarCraft does. Nothing happens in between frames. One frame passes, things happen. Another frame passes, things happen, and so on.
Things do happen in between frames; the game can detect input at a much faster rate than a frame, especially if your framerate is 30 or below. In fact the rate at which it can detect input is much faster than anyone can input them (think of processors operating at 3+Ghz, that's 3 billion things per second)
Without being pedantic about the use of the word 'frame', i'll assume you meant each action is like a 'turn'.
That would mean that the speed at which you can take turns would depend on how fast you can play, and therefore the amount of turns each player takes would be different. I believe in a turn based game, each player gets the same amount of turns.
|
On October 24 2012 10:04 Mongoose wrote:
Things do happen in between frames; the game can detect input at a much faster rate than a frame, especially if your framerate is 30 or below. In fact the rate at which it can detect input is much faster than anyone can input them (think of processors operating at 3+Ghz, that's 3 billion things per second)
Without being pedantic about the use of the word 'frame', i'll assume you meant each action is like a 'turn'.
That would mean that the speed at which you can take turns would depend on how fast you can play, and therefore the amount of turns each player takes would be different. I believe in a turn based game, each player gets the same amount of turns.
I think this man has a point ヽ(^。^)丿
|
wait, this is a blog? wtf 1/5
|
The point was made rather awkwardly, but I think I get what the OP is saying.
Those of you who play chess might understand it more easily - in Chess, a turn-based game, there still is the concept of "time". If you can attack an opponent's important piece will simultaneously putting your piece in a better position, you have in a sense, gained time - your opponent has to react to your move rather than do what he originally would have rather done, and that helps give you more time and moves to execute your plan. That's why, for example, it's not recommended to bring out a vital unit like the Queen out onto the board too early, because chances are you'll waste a lot of moves retreating it from enemy pieces, and while your opponent is developing his battle formation, you've just been moving around your queen for 3-4 moves without preparing your own attack, and you're stuck on the defensive for the rest of the game.
Similarly, in StarCraft, there are moves that don't necessarily "cost" you too much attention or APM, but require your opponent to make some effort in response, and that can help make it so he can't concentrate elsewhere, building up to more and more mistakes. For example, at the D+/C- level on iCCup, dropping 4 zealots into a Zerg's main in PvZ really doesn't do that much damage normally, but because zealots are strong enough to take down a single sunken placed for defense and require at least a handful of hydras to clear out, a simple move like this provides a distraction allowing you to expand more easily, or perhaps start to break out of a lurker contain. If he's preoccupied with the zealots in the main, he might not pay enough attention to scourge your observers, and if he spends all his APM into scourging observers, the zealots do have the potential to do some real damage.
In other words, it's a good idea to take advantage of moves that don't cost you too much in terms of resources or APM, but force the opponent to react in certain ways, giving yourself a bit more breathing room to implement your plans. The several examples that the OP listed are a good example of this. Dropping a plague on a bunch of supply depots is relatively easy for the Zerg to do, but it's a pain in the ass for the Terran to deal with. Arbiter recalls in late game PvT are also fairly easy to execute as well, but in both circumstances the Terran *can* clear it out with relatively few losses, but it takes away APM and attention that could be spent elsewhere. This is where the difference between a good player and an excellent player really becomes obvious. Good players can execute and macro very well when nothing's going on, but when constantly harassed, start to fall apart. Excellent players have the multi-tasking skill to do lots of things at once, and as such the effect us such "time-buying moves" is smaller.
|
This is an interesting way of pointing out that APM and attention are limited resources that can be managed, but the amount of "whoosh" your wording caused is pretty astounding.
|
This is the stupidest blog I have ever read!
|
In a way, everything is a turn based game. Real life has turns or frames as well. The time it takes each neuron in your nervous system to pass information onto the next could be considered a turn. In between that time, you have no control of what happens. A person with perfect mental processing ability will be able to make use of every single turn, but humans cannot come anywhere near that.
|
you guys are taking the thread WAY too seriously. the dude realized something interesting and decided to share it, and all of you are jumping on his ass. OF COURSE it's an RTS,
|
On October 24 2012 05:48 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 05:44 EffervescentAureola wrote:
It's not turn based, it's real time strategy. Big difference.
Chess is turn based. One guy makes a move, then the other one makes a move. However, I think chess is more procedurally turn based by the obvious semantics of the game, when people gloss over the complexity and subtleties that each guy is experiencing, even when it's not their turn. Just because someone is attacking you doesn't mean you have to defend, etc. Chess is more RTS to me than turn based.
Tennis is turn based. The ball goes back and forth.
Soccer can be seen as being somewhat turn based. One team has the ball, the other defends, then the other team gets it and counterattacks, etc.
But in Starcraft, both sides essentially "have the ball" all the time. That's a very simple way to put it. Just because someone is attacking you doesn't mean you are forced to defend, you can attack back. You can ignore some of the things your opponent does and focus on your own plans. It isn't the black and white vision of "attack, defend, counter", there is a lot of gray area.
You can have a turn based game in which both players take actions during the same turn. Soccer isn't turn based, because reality doesn't run in frames. StarCraft does. Nothing happens in between frames. One frame passes, things happen. Another frame passes, things happen, and so on. Also, I think you missed the point. Of course it's a real time strategy game. That's how we humans experience it. But to a computer, it's turn based. Technically, it has turns. 60 of them each second.
Actually, reality does have "Turns" they're just such a short length in time, that we can't perceive them.
|
No...
If you can perform actions simultaneously, it is not turn-based. End of story. Bad thread, bad logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
