On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
I think you're missing the point, actually.
That attention demand and being dragged in multiple directions- how you manage it yourself and exploit it in your opponent- is part of the strategy. Not just hitting timings, mixing unit compositions and picking spots to fight. It isn't arbitrary, it's foundational.
And if anything, removing it makes it more like chess.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
I think you're missing the point, actually.
That attention demand and being dragged in multiple directions- how you manage it yourself and exploit it in your opponent- is part of the strategy. Not just hitting timings, mixing unit compositions and picking spots to fight. It isn't arbitrary, it's foundational.
And if anything, removing it makes it more like chess.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
I think you're missing the point, actually.
That attention demand and being dragged in multiple directions- how you manage it yourself and exploit it in your opponent- is part of the strategy. Not just hitting timings, mixing unit compositions and picking spots to fight. It isn't arbitrary, it's foundational.
And if anything, removing it makes it more like chess.
Obviously. But there's a difference between taxing speed, dexterity, and executive functions for arbitrary reasons, and doing so in ways that reflect tactical or strategic depth. As I said, I feel a lot can be learned from what makes FPS so tactically rich and fun (clearly I'm not going for chess 2.0 here). I suppose if I had to sum up the way I feel about modern RTS, it would be that too much of the attention and executive function tax is drawn onto various aspects of hitting macro cycles and memorizing and hitting build order timings, and too little is focused on creativity/diversity in build strategy and micro skill.
By the way, there are design solutions that could be toyed with here, like allowing players to set an AI default to auto-build upgrades (unless you tell it not to), auto-build workers and send them to mine at the most efficient location (unless you tell it not to), and to build more pylons/depots/overlords as needed (or frankly get rid of marginal supply requirements altogether and just retain the supply cap). Basically AI-automating things that don't really involve much of a "choice" so players aren't winning or losing games simply for forgetting to build an essential upgrade or whatever. Remember that there's already lots of AI mechanics in SC2 (pathfinding, fighting, etc.).
The other wild idea I have is to make at least some units more micro-able by being able to toggle into FPS mode for those units. Imagine if you could get added DPS by going into FPS mode with a ghost for a headshot, for example. But beyond this FPS toggling idea, there are ways to make units a bit more micro-able. I don't know that WC3 micro mechanics are the way to go, for some reason that game feels slower and less responsive to me, but maybe that's just personal preference or because I'm not used to it. But maybe some more micro-able dodge, absorption, deflection, reflection, etc. mechanics that can reward micro skill and create moments of surprise and excitement. I don't know how I feel about hero units that can level up. Alternative win conditions like in AOE IV are interesting, but I haven't played and don't know if they are viable.
Less wild ideas include having many, many more maps in the map pool and having more diversity in terms of map features. And adding in new units and balance patching more frequently. Or somehow making the games shorter and having minimum Bo7 series.
My theory is that with these kinds of tweaks, the games will become more interesting and exciting. Right now, it feels a little like you decide on a build, let's say a two-base timing build, and then just do your best to remember and execute the build order, hit the timing as accurately as possible, and hope the other player didn't hard counter you. You don't really want your most elite pro players calling your game a coin flip or rock, paper, scissors, you know what I mean? If you're working with like a 100 map map pool and an ever shifting roster of units and balance patches, it'll require more adaptation and creativity, and you'll have to try things out and hope you can micro your way to victory. It'll be more chaotic for sure, but thus the hopefully shorter games and longer series to smooth things out.
I get that this is personal gaming preference as much as anything, and I still really like SC2 and grew up on all the foundational RTS titles, but it does feel like there's an RTS out there that's better for my playstyle.
If I remember correctly, AoE4 had a quite diverse mappool with the problem that on some maps there was one clearly favored race. Risky business. To the FPS idea: I think we discusses this in the Stormgate thread already. There are quite a few games that do this sort of thing and they are not very known / successful from an esport pov To the build order "problem": In CS:GO you have to know and remember multiple nade spots and timings on each map. Not much difference to remembering builds orders honestly. I really don't see this as a problem at all personally.
I don't wanna badmouth your ideas, just giving some perspective. You go about this openminded and I really like that
I suppose if I had to sum up the way I feel about modern RTS, it would be that too much of the attention and executive function tax is drawn onto various aspects of hitting macro cycles and memorizing and hitting build order timings, and too little is focused on creativity/diversity in build strategy and micro skill.
I think you haven’t experienced what it’s like to enjoy it.
Think about a jazz trio improvising: they’ve got a very bare outline of the song they’re playing, then they each have musical ideas while they play, and they’re each listening to each other and responding to each others musical ideas, like a conversation. If the pianist has an idea of what they want to play next and it’s a really mechanically difficult thing to play, it’s not fun if they struggle to play it. However, if they’re playing within their ability level, then the greater mechanical difficulty is actually more satisfying to play. Playing it smoothly and beautifully and perfectly in time feels really great. Playing something that is mechanically easy can also make for good music, but it lacks a dimension of satisfaction.
Of course, the music is what’s most important, so the mechanics support the music. StarCraft is similar this way: you have a strategy that is flexible and subject to improvisation, you’ve got a wide range of mechanical difficulty but you’re not forced to take on more than you’re comfortable with, and ultimately the strategy is what’s most important.
Now, some people will take an excellent jazz performance recording and painstakingly transcribe it note for note, and then attempt to play it while lacking the mechanics to play it beautifully, and they'll play it without the context within which it was originally improvised.
That is how a lot of people play StarCraft: they poorly imitate strategies they don’t understand that require mechanics far beyond them. It stresses them out and it’s dissatisfying. That's not the game's fault! That's not really playing the game any more than someone copying a jazz performance note-for-note is playing jazz.
The fact is it’s difficult to play well. It’s difficult in more dimensions that most other games. Removing those dimensions would remove its character, its identity.
I agree it can be improved in certain ways. But the simple idea that people have of identifying this or that mundane task and saying let’s just remove those so that a higher percentage of tasks are meaningful, that’s crazy. Doing the tasks is supposed to be satisfying, like a fidget spinner or something. If I have the musical idea to arpeggiate a chord up 3 octaves, I want to actually push down each key and hear the note sing out when I do that physical action. The “modernize RTS” crowd wants to take away my many hours of practicing how to play arpeggios beautifully and give me an “auto arpeggio” button to push, because apparently the only worthwhile part of the process is having the idea of playing an arpeggio. Naw. Let me play it. It's more fun to actually play it. It's not only more fun, it's an entirely different experience, as different as listening to music versus playing music.
When I say I want successors to StarCraft to remain mechanically difficult, that is what I'm talking about: the marrying of mechanical difficulty and strategy.
When we look at how clunky BW is and continue the music/piano analogy, I think BW is like playing on a shitty piano. No one had ever played a piano before so playing it at all was an incredible experience. But some of the keys were sticky or really heavy to press, so it was exceedingly difficult to play smoothly and beautifully. So things like improving the pathfinding make sense to me. When an SCV is told to build something, it should reliably and promptly go build it. Things like that.
But people come to the StarCraft community, talking about what's wrong with StarCraft and what they want from future RTS, and they take this idea too far.
Specifically, the idea that any action that is "mindless" should be removed from the game. Or worse yet, any action that is both difficult to master and is essential to executing a strategy should be made easier to master, so that people with limited mechanical ability still have maximum strategic options. Unfortunately, that's just not what kind of game it is. The better your mechanics, the more possibilities open up to you.
If you don’t want to learn hard things, then play at a beginner level forever. It can be fun too. Just like easy to play music can be nice to listen to. It's also satisfying to play if that's where your skill level is at. Or don't play the ranked ladder. RTS is also campaigns, co-op, etc. A lot of the people making the new RTS's know how special a mechanically difficult 1v1 ladder is so they're keeping it that way. And for the players who don't know how to enjoy it, they're making other game modes and content. Like in Stormgate, I believe the plan is for 3v3 to be a different game than 1v1. Like 3v3 could have heroes and 1v1 won't. Obviously there will be a lot of overlap, but I think there'll be less multitasking and macro in 3v3, and more micro and coordination with teammates. And then there's co-op too.
Or just play a different RTS, far away from the successors to StarCraft. Or a different genre. IDK.
Beautiful post, NonY. That's exactly how I feel about it too. A friend of mine has brought up those quibbles with the game before and I was unable to eloquently describe why I didn't want Starcraft to be an auto battler.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
Tbh, I don't think the FPS genre really tests the same aspects of the player similarly. Starcraft and other RTSes push player by requiring routine inputs which almost settle into a flow state, and then flipping you up by introducing random interactive elements further taxing you. The cognitive load in CS is significantly different and makes the random interactive elements the focus. This, in turn, pushes the allotted load onto a somewhat simplified decision space, allowing you to have the insane speed and accuracy needed to beat someone in a duel when both of you are peeking or responding to the peek.
In Starcraft, you have to predict/maneuver/win the battle, but minimize the cost of the attention that could have gone to macro. The balancing act is the game, and changing this equation may make the game feel unrewarding/bland/unfair. Making a game with the routine being significantly less important is definitely a possibility, but how this is done is obviously a major point. An example is caster units in SC2, because one high impact spell that can be spammed with 1 control group has a mechanical cost of a click or two, while the response usually requires a higher degree of investment.
Simplifying the macro is one thing, but the shape of the micro aspects becomes extremely important to nail, because otherwise it can have larger scale consequences that won't even be redeemable after game release. (Side note: would auto battlers just be an RTS with macro mechanics essentially removed?)
Personally, the game won't feel as rewarding if the micro elements are even bigger deciders, because games that test these skills more (like DOTA/LOL) show that heroes with bigger macro mechanics aren't as popular (Meepo/Chen/Enchantress etc in DOTA, idk in League).
I like your take a lot, but would dispute some aspects of it. First, though I'm not a neuroscientist, I don't think that the nuanced distinctions you're trying to make between RTS and FPS matter in practice too much, at least if we're talking about the micro aspects of RTS. In both, you're intuitively predicting and maneuvering, and executing the mechanics of battling, because frankly there is often not enough time to process the relevant information and make a calculated decision. These are still incredibly important decisions--often game-ending ones--but they are intuitive, realtime mostly tactical decisions that are at the crux of what makes these genres different from turn-based strategy games.
The major distinction from a cognitive perspective is actually with how the two genres interact with memory-based mechanics, in that RTS taxes short- and long-term memory a ton more than FPS (did I remember to send my workers back to mine? did I remember to make that upgrade? am I remembering this build order sequence correctly?). Sure in FPS you maybe need to remember to reload and memorize the terrain features of a map, but on balance there's very little by way of memory-based mechanics or game features. The most important thing to understand about the distinction here is that memory-based mechanics do not involve strategic or tactical decision-making. This is why it feels deeply unfair and tragic when an SC2 pro loses a game because they simply forgot to make a critical upgrade but it feels totally fair and exciting when a player eliminates another player with a single headshot.
I agree that when/how often/under what circumstances a player decides to look away from their armies to macro up are critical decisions that are core to RTS, but I guess I question whether they should be. You asked whether an RTS without macro cycles would essentially be an auto-battler, but ironically I'd argue that the macro and micro mechanisms in SC2 make the game function very similarly to an auto-battler. Build order win games are almost by definition auto-battlers, and there are entire Bronze-to-GM playthroughs that involve macro'ing up to a specific unit composition and F2'ing to victory. Elite pros over the last few years of meta have been calling certain matchups a coin flip (worse than an autobattler), or a game of rock, paper, scissors (the worst form of autobattler).
You've got it backwards: more than anything it's the micro that distinguishes RTS from auto-battlers. The problem is that it would be incredibly hard to control an entire army in battle even if that was the only thing you were focused on. The macro-heavy gameplay loop unfortunately means that most battles involve poking and retreating and hoping to jump on your opponent's army or sneak in a doom drop while they weren't paying attention--probably because they were macro'ing up back home! Losing a game because you happened to look away from your army at an unfortunate moment to build a pylon because game devs say you need to build pylons does not feel like the epitome of strategy and tactics. RTS without the unnecessary macro execution cycles is honestly closer to what RTS should be to me. With it, it's like RTS + rhythm game.
There are underlying strategic and tactical aspects to what RTS players and designers call "macro" that are valuable to retain. For example, the decision of whether to invest in economy or invest in army units, the decision of which units to build, the decision of whether to make more units or make upgrades so that your existing units will be stronger, the decision to make tech switch, or the decision to go all-in. Unlike micro or army movement and positioning decisions, which almost always need to be intuitive and instantaneous, these macro decisions are often strategic decisions. We want them to be informed, considered decisions, even if you may gain an edge by making them very quickly. Taking a second or two to think and make a decision, or making a decision and then cancelling, comes with significant costs...you do not need extraneous administrative and cognitive taxing to make this tension between micro and macro feel urgent. I don't understand why people feel that we need to force players to look away from and relinquish control of their armies while simultaneously playing memory mini-games in order to make RTS work in a way that feels right.
Imagine how much more fun and interesting battles could be if players could remain focused on their units and armies (while "remotely" making the keyboard inputs to execute their builds, and allowing pre-decided default build sequences and actions that could be cancelled and reprogrammed). The auto-wins when someone isn't looking at their army would be gone, as would the boring, reflexive auto-retreats when fights happen to coincide with base-building actions or macro cycle timings. You'd have a lot more potential for meaningfully micro-able units and unit attacks, defenses, movements, and spells that would produce a lot of very interesting unit interaction possibilities. Many of the most iconic and hype SC2 moments would happen more often...more APM/attention for those burrowed banelings, for example
Anyways, I recognize part of this is just preference, but I do think a significant chunk of the community conflates macro with rote memory-taxing and execution on pre-decided, memorized build orders. It can and should be much more about strategic decisions related to how to calibrate and adapt your economy v. army balance, unit compositions, etc. to evolving, novel game states.
I suppose if I had to sum up the way I feel about modern RTS, it would be that too much of the attention and executive function tax is drawn onto various aspects of hitting macro cycles and memorizing and hitting build order timings, and too little is focused on creativity/diversity in build strategy and micro skill.
I think you haven’t experienced what it’s like to enjoy it.
Think about a jazz trio improvising: they’ve got a very bare outline of the song they’re playing, then they each have musical ideas while they play, and they’re each listening to each other and responding to each others musical ideas, like a conversation. If the pianist has an idea of what they want to play next and it’s a really mechanically difficult thing to play, it’s not fun if they struggle to play it. However, if they’re playing within their ability level, then the greater mechanical difficulty is actually more satisfying to play. Playing it smoothly and beautifully and perfectly in time feels really great. Playing something that is mechanically easy can also make for good music, but it lacks a dimension of satisfaction.
Of course, the music is what’s most important, so the mechanics support the music. StarCraft is similar this way: you have a strategy that is flexible and subject to improvisation, you’ve got a wide range of mechanical difficulty but you’re not forced to take on more than you’re comfortable with, and ultimately the strategy is what’s most important.
Now, some people will take an excellent jazz performance recording and painstakingly transcribe it note for note, and then attempt to play it while lacking the mechanics to play it beautifully, and they'll play it without the context within which it was originally improvised.
That is how a lot of people play StarCraft: they poorly imitate strategies they don’t understand that require mechanics far beyond them. It stresses them out and it’s dissatisfying. That's not the game's fault! That's not really playing the game any more than someone copying a jazz performance note-for-note is playing jazz.
The fact is it’s difficult to play well. It’s difficult in more dimensions that most other games. Removing those dimensions would remove its character, its identity.
I agree it can be improved in certain ways. But the simple idea that people have of identifying this or that mundane task and saying let’s just remove those so that a higher percentage of tasks are meaningful, that’s crazy. Doing the tasks is supposed to be satisfying, like a fidget spinner or something. If I have the musical idea to arpeggiate a chord up 3 octaves, I want to actually push down each key and hear the note sing out when I do that physical action. The “modernize RTS” crowd wants to take away my many hours of practicing how to play arpeggios beautifully and give me an “auto arpeggio” button to push, because apparently the only worthwhile part of the process is having the idea of playing an arpeggio. Naw. Let me play it. It's more fun to actually play it. It's not only more fun, it's an entirely different experience, as different as listening to music versus playing music.
When I say I want successors to StarCraft to remain mechanically difficult, that is what I'm talking about: the marrying of mechanical difficulty and strategy.
When we look at how clunky BW is and continue the music/piano analogy, I think BW is like playing on a shitty piano. No one had ever played a piano before so playing it at all was an incredible experience. But some of the keys were sticky or really heavy to press, so it was exceedingly difficult to play smoothly and beautifully. So things like improving the pathfinding make sense to me. When an SCV is told to build something, it should reliably and promptly go build it. Things like that.
But people come to the StarCraft community, talking about what's wrong with StarCraft and what they want from future RTS, and they take this idea too far.
Specifically, the idea that any action that is "mindless" should be removed from the game. Or worse yet, any action that is both difficult to master and is essential to executing a strategy should be made easier to master, so that people with limited mechanical ability still have maximum strategic options. Unfortunately, that's just not what kind of game it is. The better your mechanics, the more possibilities open up to you.
If you don’t want to learn hard things, then play at a beginner level forever. It can be fun too. Just like easy to play music can be nice to listen to. It's also satisfying to play if that's where your skill level is at. Or don't play the ranked ladder. RTS is also campaigns, co-op, etc. A lot of the people making the new RTS's know how special a mechanically difficult 1v1 ladder is so they're keeping it that way. And for the players who don't know how to enjoy it, they're making other game modes and content. Like in Stormgate, I believe the plan is for 3v3 to be a different game than 1v1. Like 3v3 could have heroes and 1v1 won't. Obviously there will be a lot of overlap, but I think there'll be less multitasking and macro in 3v3, and more micro and coordination with teammates. And then there's co-op too.
Or just play a different RTS, far away from the successors to StarCraft. Or a different genre. IDK.
Don't worry, no one's going to take SC2 away from you Also, people aren't coming to the Starcraft community to trash the game, remember this is a thread in response to David Kim's thinking on the subject...
For context though, I'm a gamer in my 40's, been playing RTS since the original C&C. I enjoy RTS a lot, and SC2 I feel is the best title (of all the ones I've played at least). I've also played every other genre of game, both tabletop and digital.
The fact that you think SC2 is like Jazz is interesting. It makes me think maybe you haven't played too many other genres of games. I might say some procedural-generated FPS and isometric action and rogue-likes--maybe some MOBAs and RPGs--are a better analogy to jazz. Lots of adaptation and improvisation required, lots of build or gamestate diversity, an incredible amount of what I think you are referring to as "mechanical" skill. Think games like Elden Ring and Breathe of the Wild for doing whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want, as long as you have the talent and skill to pull it off.
SC2 is maybe more like techno or house, and specifically producing and mixing it. Plenty of variation but mostly a lot of remixing and recycling of similar sounds, sequences, beats and structures within pretty tight time-signature and BPM constraints. But get your beatmatching, track selection, and mixing right, and it'll sound and feel dang good. In SC2, not a lot of flexibility in optimal build options or unit compositions within specific match-ups. Metas get recycled, but are mostly stable unless and until units are dramatically patched or reworked.
It's not so much that I don't like doing mechanically hard things, but you're right I'm not game for incorporating a bunch of mindless, unnecessary tasks when unit micro and army control in RTS is already probably the most mechanically taxing thing in all of digital gaming. I get that you like playing with fidget toys, but maybe our RTS titles can have more strategic and tactical depth?
On September 30 2023 01:20 Telephone wrote: Beautiful post, NonY. That's exactly how I feel about it too. A friend of mine has brought up those quibbles with the game before and I was unable to eloquently describe why I didn't want Starcraft to be an auto battler.
When the elite pros are calling it a coin flip or rock, paper, scissors, maybe that's a sign that some modernization might be needed...
On September 30 2023 00:09 Harris1st wrote: If I remember correctly, AoE4 had a quite diverse mappool with the problem that on some maps there was one clearly favored race. Risky business. To the FPS idea: I think we discusses this in the Stormgate thread already. There are quite a few games that do this sort of thing and they are not very known / successful from an esport pov To the build order "problem": In CS:GO you have to know and remember multiple nade spots and timings on each map. Not much difference to remembering builds orders honestly. I really don't see this as a problem at all personally.
I don't wanna badmouth your ideas, just giving some perspective. You go about this openminded and I really like that
Fair enough. Hard to say sometimes whether these ideas are inherently flawed versus not being executed properly. For example, Marvel Snap has over a hundred locations, which then requires some improvisation, adaptation, and creativity in the play. But some are clearly favorited for certain decks, creating the build choice win problem. They account for this by making games very short and allowing you to concede to lose fewer ELO points that you would if you were defeated. FWIW, I'd say SC2 already has a higher % of build-order wins than I'd want, especially when so many professional matches are Bo3.
Literally every game requires some kind of recall and pattern-recognition/memorization, of course, but familiarizing yourself with and remembering terrain requirements in CS:GO is simply not the same thing as all the unit production, building construction, worker rerouting, unit rallying, upgrades, etc. that you need to remember/check every 20-odd seconds. Not to mention all the screen-switching and extra keyboard and mouse inputs. When people create custom timers to remember to do stuff, your game is officially on another level...
On September 30 2023 01:20 Telephone wrote: Beautiful post, NonY. That's exactly how I feel about it too. A friend of mine has brought up those quibbles with the game before and I was unable to eloquently describe why I didn't want Starcraft to be an auto battler.
When the elite pros are calling it a coin flip or rock, paper, scissors, maybe that's a sign that some modernization might be needed...
Pros have been calling that since forever, but when the coin flips or rock beats the scissors you definitively have a 1-0 score. In reality they're full of it and situations have advantages and disadvantages, where you made a sacrifice somewhere else got a benefit up until the point where you mess up beyond the build order but in tactics. If you go for the earlier lings, sacrificing economy, you still have units on the field, that have their own ability to attack and can scout for information, meaning you can recover in economy during that time if you choose, but if you launch those lings into a full wall off and lose all of them, you've now lost your advantage and fully droning is risky. The game wasn't over because of the build order, but because of your poor use of the advantage you had. This applies across the board if strategies were simply coin flips or rock paper scissors, then nobody would ever recover, and the second you scouted that your opponent had the better build order you would just GG and go next. And beyond that your choice in picking a strategy that is inferior in some with little to no recovery accross the board was a risk you took, you chose to flip a coin when there were options for a well developed match giving you multiple situations to take advantage of and games shouldn't be balanced around you taking a risk and it not working out.
On September 30 2023 01:20 Telephone wrote: Beautiful post, NonY. That's exactly how I feel about it too. A friend of mine has brought up those quibbles with the game before and I was unable to eloquently describe why I didn't want Starcraft to be an auto battler.
When the elite pros are calling it a coin flip or rock, paper, scissors, maybe that's a sign that some modernization might be needed...
Pros have been calling that since forever, but when the coin flips or rock beats the scissors you definitively have a 1-0 score. In reality they're full of it and situations have advantages and disadvantages, where you made a sacrifice somewhere else got a benefit up until the point where you mess up beyond the build order but in tactics. If you go for the earlier lings, sacrificing economy, you still have units on the field, that have their own ability to attack and can scout for information, meaning you can recover in economy during that time if you choose, but if you launch those lings into a full wall off and lose all of them, you've now lost your advantage and fully droning is risky. The game wasn't over because of the build order, but because of your poor use of the advantage you had. This applies across the board if strategies were simply coin flips or rock paper scissors, then nobody would ever recover, and the second you scouted that your opponent had the better build order you would just GG and go next. And beyond that your choice in picking a strategy that is inferior in some with little to no recovery accross the board was a risk you took, you chose to flip a coin when there were options for a well developed match giving you multiple situations to take advantage of and games shouldn't be balanced around you taking a risk and it not working out.
The pros are full of it? Mostly they've been saying this in mirror match-ups like ZvZ so you can't even attribute this to disingenuous balance whine. If you don't think there are build order wins in SC2, I'm not really sure what to say. The reason pros don't just GG post-scout is that there's always a 2% chance that the opponent will screw up the follow-up and in tournament play you're often going to play it out especially if you're on your last life. But then again you sometimes do actually see an immediate GG, especially in a Bo5 or Bo7.
The thing is, the rock, paper, scissors dynamic isn't necessarily an awful thing in strategy games. It'll be inherent in literally any game in which there is some form of hidden information. Even is supposedly open information games like chess, you can argue that rock, paper, scissors is at play if you pick an opening line that your opponent happens to not have looked at recently enough. What you need to do with games that have have high build order loss variance is have tournament formats that allow for longer series or higher numbers of games (round robin or swiss formats, for example) to smooth out that variance. Losing game 1 to a build order loss in a Bo3 with your tourney life on the line is really brutal.
Jesus, what am I even reading. I don't even know what points you're trying to argue at this point, rwala. Obviously you enjoy the discussion, however you're (possibly subconsciously) not pushing the discussion forward and are just randomly picking points from various posts to attempt to discredit their points with your own opinion. Stop being a lil debate bro.
What a tiresome thread. Should've known when there's 12 pages going on about a quote from 2021 with no further substance.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
I think you're missing the point, actually.
That attention demand and being dragged in multiple directions- how you manage it yourself and exploit it in your opponent- is part of the strategy. Not just hitting timings, mixing unit compositions and picking spots to fight. It isn't arbitrary, it's foundational.
And if anything, removing it makes it more like chess.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
I think you're missing the point, actually.
That attention demand and being dragged in multiple directions- how you manage it yourself and exploit it in your opponent- is part of the strategy. Not just hitting timings, mixing unit compositions and picking spots to fight. It isn't arbitrary, it's foundational.
And if anything, removing it makes it more like chess.
... I suppose if I had to sum up the way I feel about modern RTS, it would be that too much of the attention and executive function tax is drawn onto various aspects of hitting macro cycles and memorizing and hitting build order timings, and too little is focused on creativity/diversity in build strategy and micro skill. ... I get that this is personal gaming preference as much as anything, and I still really like SC2 and grew up on all the foundational RTS titles, but it does feel like there's an RTS out there that's better for my playstyle.
Command and Conquer Red Alert 3. 1 Harvester Automatically Spawns from the Resource Gathering Hub. 1 Harverster Per Resource Node. Set it and forget it. 1 Resource.
SC2's Chris Morten employed many of the co-op ideas built in RA3.
I mean if you find it tiresome, maybe don't tire yourself out by engaging? I ignore all the dozens of pages of GOAT discussions that pop up every once in a while because I find it tiresome and boring. It's not that hard, try it Feels a little like you're just going out of your way Smorrie to be mean. I think I've added some thoughtful and interesting points to consider (at least some others have acknowledged as much). But if you don't, that's cool. I've also said some of this is just preference (i.e. there's no objective truth). I'm responding to specific points and enjoying the back and forth, but certainly not trying to discredit anyone who has a different perspective.
On September 30 2023 04:40 rwala wrote: I mean if you find it tiresome, maybe don't tire yourself out by engaging? I ignore all the dozens of pages of GOAT discussions that pop up every once in a while because I find it tiresome and boring. It's not that hard, try it Feels a little like you're just going out of your way Smorrie to be mean. I think I've added some thoughtful and interesting points to consider (at least some others have acknowledged as much). But if you don't, that's cool. I've also said some of this is just preference (i.e. there's no objective truth). I'm responding to specific points and enjoying the back and forth, but certainly not trying to discredit anyone who has a different perspective.
I read up on the thread and decided my brain hurt too much trying to comprehend what points you are actually trying to make, even though you've been adding the most posts to the thread.
Since you've classified my earlier response as 'mean', I guess it's at least fair to you to at least elaborate...
Nony's writing a 2 page prose in an attempt to provide different perspectives, since you're ignoring arguments that have been provided to you already. You then at random pick and choose some of his metaphors to argue something different. You then continue by misquoting him, showing you've made little effort to actually read and understand the thoughts he shared. In between there you find some room to attempt to discredit him by saying he probably hasn't played too many other games - based on what exactly?
You told me before 'I'm misunderstanding the point' and then side-step into a different discussion, even though I challenged you exactly on the point you originally made.
Your response to Wintex goes all over the place, but is ultimately brought down to discrediting his opinion.
I don't even know why you're trying to pick a fight with Telephone, putting out the bait with a random statement.
The only thing I've gathered through all of it, is that you don't like a lot of BW's mechanics. You're passed 40 and feel like there are plenty of games that have superior game design, making BW outdated. Good thing, that means there are plenty of other games for you to enjoy! You might want to look into RTT (real time tactics) games, they tend to keep away from macro management.
Something I wanted to call you out on, in case you're not realizing this yourself.
That said, I'll leave you all to it! Maybe the thread can stay alive until there actually is something substantial released by Uncapped Games.
I think it's very telling when people argue that modern games are "too mechanical and repetitive" or whatever. I find them all to be really easy on that front. Macro has been dumbed down to an insane degree yet you still have people bitching. And then they have the gall to argue the point objectively, saying games -should- be less mechanical.
It's not as if the game studios are fighting each other to make the next Brood War, like it's that mall scene from Jingle All The Way. Imo it'd be great if a studio found the balls to make a really mechanical game again, but they all know 95% of consumers slide home on a stream of their own feces while playing mobile games and autobattlers. And yet you still see people up in arms about the 1% chance that another challenging game could hit the market sometime in the next 50 years. Like good lord. You have literally thousands of games to choose from that aren't mechanical. Let the bros have 1 nutbusting RTS every 30 years. God forbid.
On September 30 2023 04:40 rwala wrote: I mean if you find it tiresome, maybe don't tire yourself out by engaging? I ignore all the dozens of pages of GOAT discussions that pop up every once in a while because I find it tiresome and boring. It's not that hard, try it Feels a little like you're just going out of your way Smorrie to be mean. I think I've added some thoughtful and interesting points to consider (at least some others have acknowledged as much). But if you don't, that's cool. I've also said some of this is just preference (i.e. there's no objective truth). I'm responding to specific points and enjoying the back and forth, but certainly not trying to discredit anyone who has a different perspective.
I read up on the thread and decided my brain hurt too much trying to comprehend what points you are actually trying to make, even though you've been adding the most posts to the thread.
Since you've classified my earlier response as 'mean', I guess it's at least fair to you to at least elaborate...
Nony's writing a 2 page prose in an attempt to provide different perspectives, since you're ignoring arguments that have been provided to you already. You then at random pick and choose some of his metaphors to argue something different. You then continue by misquoting him, showing you've made little effort to actually read and understand the thoughts he shared. In between there you find some room to attempt to discredit him by saying he probably hasn't played too many other games - based on what exactly?
You told me before 'I'm misunderstanding the point' and then side-step into a different discussion, even though I challenged you exactly on the point you originally made.
Your response to Wintex goes all over the place, but is ultimately brought down to discrediting his opinion.
I don't even know why you're trying to pick a fight with Telephone, putting out the bait with a random statement.
The only thing I've gathered through all of it, is that you don't like a lot of BW's mechanics. You're passed 40 and feel like there are plenty of games that have superior game design, making BW outdated. Good thing, that means there are plenty of other games for you to enjoy! You might want to look into RTT (real time tactics) games, they tend to keep away from macro management.
Something I wanted to call you out on, in case you're not realizing this yourself.
That said, I'll leave you all to it! Maybe the thread can stay alive until there actually is something substantial released by Uncapped Games.
U mad bro? This is a discussion thread in a video game forum, there's really no need to get all aggro.
For someone who is tired and upset, you sure do have a lot of energy to read all my responses and figure out how to mischaracterize them. But if you'd actually read and understood them, you'd know I enjoy RTS and am just offering some thoughts on ways it could be improved (at least for me).
RTT is great, but doesn't scratch the same itch. The reason that RTS is fun is that it's the tactical play of armies and units battling coupled with the strategic play associated primarily with engine-building and resource-management gameplay mechanisms. I just don't agree that the strategic play component needs to be so much of a memory skill check or include so much task management and execution. We are not asking to turn RTS into another genre, we are asking for, at minimum, a continuation of the quality of life improvements that SC2 made over BW with respect to AI, pathfinding, action programming, and automation that allows players to focus more on strategic decisionmaking, battle tactics, and unit micro. I agree that BW's design "quirks" like being unable to group buildings allow for greater mechanical skill differentiation, but so would disallowing unit grouping, pathfinding, and rally points, all of which automate or consolidate what would otherwise need to be many individually-executed actions. Somehow I don't hear BW purists complain about these action execution shortcuts. Alas, the original sin lies with BW itself...
Even with its flaws, BW is a great game, and SC2 is even better in my opinion. I think there will likely be future RTS titles that are even better, for all the reasons I and many others in this thread have explained (not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding). There's really no reason to get triggered just because some people might think your favorite game could be better.
On September 30 2023 09:19 RogerChillingworth wrote: I think it's very telling when people argue that modern games are "too mechanical and repetitive" or whatever. I find them all to be really easy on that front. Macro has been dumbed down to an insane degree yet you still have people bitching. And then they have the gall to argue the point objectively, saying games -should- be less mechanical.
It's not as if the game studios are fighting each other to make the next Brood War, like it's that mall scene from Jingle All The Way. Imo it'd be great if a studio found the balls to make a really mechanical game again, but they all know 95% of consumers slide home on a stream of their own feces while playing mobile games and autobattlers. And yet you still see people up in arms about the 1% chance that another challenging game could hit the market sometime in the next 50 years. Like good lord. You have literally thousands of games to choose from that aren't mechanical. Let the bros have 1 nutbusting RTS every 30 years. God forbid.
No need to wait, you can bust yer nuts on DDR, much more mechanically challenging than BW, or better yet play BW and DDR simultaneously for a real challenge.
It's not surprising to see people argue against 'next gen' rts design in here, as this is a starcraft forum and people obviously are biased towards the starcraft franchise when it comes to game design. I just wish people would look a little beyond their own biases and not assume that just because people are asking for certain tasks to be streamlined more (mostly inputs regarding macro, which generally are simply efficient or not, not a whole lot of self-expression going on there), that people ask for "easy" games. You could make every action requring two inputs for bw / sc2, it would be mechanically harder, would that be a positive? I'd think most reasonable answers would be: No. That mechanical inputs are fun, that mastering something challenging can be satisfying, well yeah ofc, but you would still have these elements through other inputs, noone is asking for an auto battler here, people just want to move the majority of input actions into other elements, elements which are more prone to self-expression / creativity, which are more dynamic, more directly linked to the pvp aspect of the game. People want to make the game more like a jazz improv, not less so.