EPTI am interested to see the game and I like the idea of small groups of units with big impacts. If they are not going for a lot of base building, I like a focus on a small group and using them over a specific area, especially in a team game.
Guardians of Atlas - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Games |
Development ended, game appears to be dead. https://forums.artillery.com/discussion/911/end-of-development -Jinro | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I am interested to see the game and I like the idea of small groups of units with big impacts. If they are not going for a lot of base building, I like a focus on a small group and using them over a specific area, especially in a team game. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 02 2015 22:17 Plansix wrote: The problem with the term "micro" is that is boils down to "doing shit with a mouse, which is the primary input for the game." By its so vague that macro can be considered micro because you click things and have to do it fast, but they are buildings. It is this subjective measurement that people use as qualitative, but is anything but. I'm all for making game have depth, but RTS discussions get to far up their own ass with the "increased micro/anti-mirco discussions" to measure quality. I am interested to see the game and I like the idea of small groups of units with big impacts. If they are not going for a lot of base building, I like a focus on a small group and using them over a specific area, especially in a team game. I think the terms micro/macro are just badly trasnfered into RTS gaming. Do they even exist outside of the Starcraft/Blizzard RTS community? I always feel like anytime someone in another RTS forum starts using that term it turns out to be a Starcraft player. I think more accurately would be talking about a "more army control focused" game, instead of a "production/setup focused" game. Obviously, when I queue an upgrade and stuff like that then I'm "micromanaging my production", while I don't know if there is really something that would relate to the classical, economical term "macromanagement" in Starcraft.  But be it as it is, that's our terminology and I think we shouldn't focus on "doing shit with the mouse", but, as I said where your camera and control focus lies most of the time. On the combat/unit parts of the game, or on the building/producing parts of the game. Which we call "micro" and "macro". | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I get why people like the terms because it lets them talking about the strengths and weakness of a player at points of the game. But I don't think they are useful when talking about how a game is built or in the abstract. As proficiency with a game increases, players just naturally take on more actions. Games don't need to try an max out the player through artificial means or took to "add AMP to create depth and a higher skill ceiling" That process will handle itself. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
 | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
The problem with the term "micro" is that is boils down to "doing shit with a mouse, which is the primary input for the game." By its so vague that macro can be considered micro because you click things and have to do it fast, but they are buildings. For me dodging a skillshot in a MOBA is "micro" too, even though it just requires 2 actions. (it's not used in MOBA's, because micro refers to controlling multiple units at once in that genre, but when transfered to RTS; skillshots should be put into the micro-category as well). Micro here is more about how you are rewarded for controlling your units as well, which can but doesn't have to be APM intensive. Similarly to how you are rewarded for being accurate with your aiming in CS. Thus, it's the (unit-related) execution-part of RTS games. Generally the production-related execution part (macro) of RTS games is less interesting than the unit-related as they involve less direct player vs player interaction. For instance microing marines vs banelings or doding a skillshot is done as a direct response to what your opponent is doing with his units, whereas injecting every xx second is irrelevant that to what the opponent is doing. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 02 2015 22:51 Hider wrote: For me dodging a skillshot in a MOBA is "micro" too, even though it just requires 2 actions. (it's not used in MOBA's, because micro refers to controlling multiple units at once in that genre, but when transfered to RTS; skillshots should be put into the micro-category as well). Micro here is more about how you are rewarded for controlling your units as well, which can but doesn't have to be APM intensive. Similarly to how you are rewarded for being accurate with your aiming in CS. Thus, it's the execution-part of RTS games. The key part of that statement is "for you". Other people don't agree and think that is just "basic unit control" or some dumb thing. Its not an agreed upon term and people often make the flawed argument that "more micro = better game". IMO it is a useful term when describing the skills of players, but not when it comes to the construct of a game. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
The key part of that statement is "for you". Yeh I mean that's just my definition. I guess that when we go to cross genres I should be more specific, but I think in an RTS-forum/environment, most people have the same perception as I do of what micro is. For instance everyone can agree that splitting vs Storm is micro, but when we transfer in elements from MOBA's, the definitions can vary a bit more. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 02 2015 22:57 Hider wrote: Yeh I mean that's just my definition. I guess that when we go to cross genres I should be more specific, but I think in an RTS-forum/environment, most people have the same perception as I do of what micro is. For instance everyone can agree that splitting vs Storm is micro, but when we transfer in elements from MOBA's, the definitions can vary a bit more. I agree when it comes to existing games. The issue is when people make judgments on games in development or in the prototype stages based on their perceived notion of how much micro a game should have. Without interacting with game, we can't really understand the nuances of its mechanics or what is or isn't involved. A prime example would be laning in Dota, which at face value is simple. But animation speed, turn speed, creep agro, denying creeps, the side shop, if abilities are orbs or not all come into effect and make it complex as hell. But when described to a player in the abstract, it sounds very simple. And if someone ask "how much micro is required" based on that simple description, they would say it wasn't a lot. But in practice it takes so much focus that it is very hard to do it with two separate units(lone druid). | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
A prime example would be laning in Dota, which at face value is simple. But animation speed, turn speed, creep agro, denying creeps, the side shop, if abilities are orbs or not all come into effect and make it complex as hell. But when described to a player in the abstract, it sounds very simple. And if someone ask "how much micro is required" based on that simple description, they would say it wasn't a lot. But in practice it takes so much focus that it is very hard to do it with two separate units(lone druid). Agree, but I also think that's because the definition of micro in a MOBA is slightly different from the definition of micro in an RTS. In a MOBA you would refer to the difficulty of laning optimally as mechanical skillceiling, whereas when you talk about mechanics in an RTS it can refer to multitasking, macro and micro. And in an RTS, micro specifically refers to how you control your units, so when describing the MOBA-laning phase through RTS definition, I would say that it does require a lot of micro/has a high micro skill cap. Since MOBA's (almost) only have micro (I am using the RTS definition here), that term becomes meaningless in that genre, and thus the MOBA-definition has been specificed to refer to controlling multiple units (and how difficult that is). I hope that isn't too confusing. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16699 Posts
On October 02 2015 22:57 Hider wrote: Yeh I mean that's just my definition. I guess that when we go to cross genres I should be more specific, but I think in an RTS-forum/environment, most people have the same perception as I do of what micro is. For instance everyone can agree that splitting vs Storm is micro, but when we transfer in elements from MOBA's, the definitions can vary a bit more. getting nit-picky here... even this blurs the definition. C&C has an "X" button that splits a group of units with 1 button press. so even between individual RTS games what is micro in 1 game is not micro in another. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
C&C has an "X" button that splits a group of units with 1 button press. so even between individual RTS games what is micro in 1 game is not micro in another. Well it's micro in my book when it meets a certain level of skillcap. Thus a very skilled player rmust be able to perform significantly better than a mediocore player. 1 button press only matters if the exact timing is extremely important ot the accurary matters a lot. Otherwise it's not micro regardless of genre. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 02 2015 23:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote: getting nit-picky here... even this blurs the definition. C&C has an "X" button that splits a group of units with 1 button press. so even between individual RTS games what is micro in 1 game is not micro in another. I think what you want to say is that "splitting is micro in starcraft, but not in CnC". But I think that's just not how one would define micro, you define micro by actually performing an action to make unit(s) do something. In which case X is still micro, just easier. But micro in my book. But yes, you are right there are instances of an "equivalent unit action" in a different RTS game not having to be managed. A real example of this would be that in Warcraft2 unit don't have an action radius in which they will automatically start chasing opponents when left on idle. So you actually have to perform some micromanagement to make a grunt attack a footman that is killing workers that are right next to the grunt, but not in range of the grunt. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
So we can clearly see that sc2 has A LOT of micro, but the quantitiy doesn't really matter, the quality of the micro (or moreso the unit interactions between both players/teams) is what makes the micro relevant for the player AND viewer. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 02 2015 23:46 The_Red_Viper wrote: Yeah i agree with BigJ's definition and imo it is the only objective one. So we can clearly see that sc2 has A LOT of micro, but the quantitiy doesn't really matter, the quality of the micro (or moreso the unit interactions between both players/teams) is what makes the micro relevant for the player AND viewer. I don't think any game should worry about the viewer when looking to game play. Beyond solid observer tools, the game just needs to focus on the players and making it fun. Esports stuff will come later. | ||
c3rberUs
Japan11286 Posts
| ||
digmouse
China6329 Posts
On October 02 2015 23:54 c3rberUs wrote: I didn't know this was possible with html5/javascript yet. Interesting. They have moved to a standalone client, not a browser game any more, part of the code has been rebuilt with C++. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16699 Posts
On October 02 2015 05:35 -Archangel- wrote: Haha, I will love to read JimmyJRaynor's special kind of negative posting on this topic. Unlike Grey Goo and Act of Aggression I don't expect anything good from this game. RTS are hard to make (as Grey Goo showed and AoA can still show) successfully and basing trust on one youtube celebrity whose whole game making skill is he was a middling progamer in BW for few years and a caster in SC2 is not really smart or a good bet. So this I hope JimmyJRaynor you are not a true Day9 fanboy and you will be just as objective in this topic as you were in other two i just like to make predictions and see how they turn out. These predictions are based on logic and facts. its only "negative" if you are some kind of fanboy harbouring blind hopes for the 2 games you listed. i notice you do not discuss my "positive" comments about CoH2. as far as this game goes ... both the company and lead designer have made exactly zero games. They promised a beta in late 2013 and the release of some kind of development platform in 2014. Thus far with a lot of big promises and nothing delivered except a concept video and some blog postings its hard to be optimistic. i recommend Artillery promote the positive track record some of its employees have developing past games. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
| ||
|
c3rberUs
Japan11286 Posts
On October 03 2015 01:00 digmouse wrote: They have moved to a standalone client, not a browser game any more, part of the code has been rebuilt with C++. So it wasn't like this before they rebuilt it? | ||
| ||
