|
On July 29 2015 22:21 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 22:17 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 29 2015 22:14 Big J wrote:Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game. These generalizations piss me off so much. No, Starcraft =/= the RTS genre. So you dont think that starcraft is an RTS? Or do you mean that there are RTS games that do not require any time to learn them? Or what is your point? I mean that just because something applies to starcraft and maybe 5other RTS games you have played it is not something intristic of every possible RTS game. Hence, playing an RTS does not have to require tons of learning time or dedication. Only the specific RTS game starcraft and certain others that you think about do. But the sentence I quoted is plain garbage as it does not apply to every existing or possible RTS game out there.
In the post you quoted I have explained my statement with the following paragraph (which you have left out):
Each strategical feature implies giving the player choices (without choices you can not be strategic, doh!) but each time you are given choices you need to be able to evaluate them to judge which one is the better choice. This, by nature, requires knowledge and a certain amount of training, or at least strategical thinking.
So what exactly do you disagree with?
a) a real-time-strategy game means that players can make strategical choices
b) when you have a choice you need to be able to judge which choice is better
c) being able to judge possible choices requires knowledge and some experience
d) aquiring knowledge and experience needs time
because if you dont disagree with any of the above points my conclusion of:
=> Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication
is valid.
|
On July 29 2015 22:30 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 22:21 Big J wrote:On July 29 2015 22:17 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 29 2015 22:14 Big J wrote:Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game. These generalizations piss me off so much. No, Starcraft =/= the RTS genre. So you dont think that starcraft is an RTS? Or do you mean that there are RTS games that do not require any time to learn them? Or what is your point? I mean that just because something applies to starcraft and maybe 5other RTS games you have played it is not something intristic of every possible RTS game. Hence, playing an RTS does not have to require tons of learning time or dedication. Only the specific RTS game starcraft and certain others that you think about do. But the sentence I quoted is plain garbage as it does not apply to every existing or possible RTS game out there. In the post you quoted I have explained my statement with the following paragraph (which you have left out): Show nested quote + Each strategical feature implies giving the player choices (without choices you can not be strategic, doh!) but each time you are given choices you need to be able to evaluate them to judge which one is the better choice. This, by nature, requires knowledge and a certain amount of training, or at least strategical thinking. So what exactly do you disagree with? a) a real-time- strategy game means that players can make strategical choices b) when you have a choice you need to be able to judge which choice is better c) being able to judge possible choices requires knowledge and some experience d) aquiring knowledge and experience needs time because if you dont disagree with any of the above points my conclusion of: => Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication is valid.
Every game that isn't decided by 100% luck is a strategy game by nature and the strategies have to be learned. Your comment implies that the strategies in an RTS game have to be hard to be understood in some form (or otherwise your comment makes no sense at all, since as I pointed out every game that goes beyond luck is a strategy game by nature and then your argument would apply to all games and every game would be a niche game, which isn't the case).
I disagree. Strategies don't have to be hard to understand. Not in general (the simplest example would be to make an RTS game with the least amount of strategy possible, which would be like a choice between two units that you can only always have one off). And also not for beginners in a complex game.
|
So what exactly do you disagree with?
a) a real-time-strategy game means that players can make strategical choices
b) when you have a choice you need to be able to judge which choice is better
c) being able to judge possible choices requires knowledge and some experience
d) aquiring knowledge and experience needs time
because if you dont disagree with any of the above points my conclusion of:
=> Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication
is valid.
You are talking about something else. Big J is basically saying that the learning curve doesn't have to be very high/steep/unforgiving in an RTS, and you are talking about how it should require alot of time to master an RTS.
A less steep learning curve doesn't imply a game that is easier to master strategically nor mechanically.
A less steep learning curve with a lot of strategic depth could be this.
- You have a choice between A, B, and C.
- In some situations A is better, in other situations B or C.
- Regardless of what you pick, you will never be at a huge disadvanatage, but it will only be a small penalty.
- The optimal decision depends on a lot of variables and changes from situation to situation. That implies that you cannot follow any simple rulebook in order to determine best cause of action.
The above scenario has depth because it will require a lot of thought and analysis to determine whether to pick A, B and C and there is a reward for picking the right one. However, the wrong pick doesn't prevent a new player from participarting at the other phases of the game.
Further, if the game continues you can have multiple of these types of decisions. A real master of strategic depth is someone that consistently gets the right answer. On the other hand, cheese/all-ins is more about being right that one time which increases variance (and thereby luck).
The problem with Sc2 is that many of the decisions you take are very obvious. It feels to me that there is more strategic depth in competitive LOL as there are many variables to take into account (the teamaspect adds a lot of dimensions). But when you play soloq, there is almost no strategy at all. It's all about "micro" (which luckily is what the majority of the more casual target group wants).
Starcraft on the other hand forces a lot of stuff down on casuals. You need to macro, micro, strategy, build order, scouting etc. all at once, while I would like to see the future of the RTS-genre focus more on micro as the primary objective and strategy as the secondary objective.
|
You hardly see cheese anymore so I welcome more cheese options. Actually, Protoss has a lot of cheese builds and are pretty much invulnerable to early cheese, I think Blizzard should look at that more.
|
On July 29 2015 22:42 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 22:30 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 29 2015 22:21 Big J wrote:On July 29 2015 22:17 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 29 2015 22:14 Big J wrote:Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication, this comes from the very nature of the game. These generalizations piss me off so much. No, Starcraft =/= the RTS genre. So you dont think that starcraft is an RTS? Or do you mean that there are RTS games that do not require any time to learn them? Or what is your point? I mean that just because something applies to starcraft and maybe 5other RTS games you have played it is not something intristic of every possible RTS game. Hence, playing an RTS does not have to require tons of learning time or dedication. Only the specific RTS game starcraft and certain others that you think about do. But the sentence I quoted is plain garbage as it does not apply to every existing or possible RTS game out there. In the post you quoted I have explained my statement with the following paragraph (which you have left out): Each strategical feature implies giving the player choices (without choices you can not be strategic, doh!) but each time you are given choices you need to be able to evaluate them to judge which one is the better choice. This, by nature, requires knowledge and a certain amount of training, or at least strategical thinking. So what exactly do you disagree with? a) a real-time- strategy game means that players can make strategical choices b) when you have a choice you need to be able to judge which choice is better c) being able to judge possible choices requires knowledge and some experience d) aquiring knowledge and experience needs time because if you dont disagree with any of the above points my conclusion of: => Playing an RTS requires some learning time and dedication is valid. Every game that isn't decided by 100% luck is a strategy game by nature and the strategies have to be learned. Your comment implies that the strategies in an RTS game have to be hard to be understood in some form (or otherwise your comment makes no sense at all, since as I pointed out every game that goes beyond luck is a strategy game by nature and then your argument would apply to all games and every game would be a niche game, which isn't the case). I disagree. Strategies don't have to be hard to understand. Not in general (the simplest example would be to make an RTS game with the least amount of strategy possible, which would be like a choice between two units that you can only always have one off). And also not for beginners in a complex game.
Thats not true. There is plenty of games that are not strategy games, for example rhythm games, or dexterity based games. Absolutely no strategy and no luck involved.
Furthermore, even games that require strategic thinking are not automatically RTS games. RTS is not equal to strategy game. Thats why the R and the T is there in the name.
And perhaps its true that you could make an RTS with only 2 units, no highground advantage, no resources, no positional play, no other kinds of micro or macro play and you might end up with an RTS thats super easy to learn and super beginner friendly. But that is a very unrealistic case thats never going to happen.
@Hider:
I agree with everything you say, but how is that relevant to whether cheese is good or bad?
|
On July 30 2015 00:38 RoomOfMush wrote:
Thats not true. There is plenty of games that are not strategy games, for example rhythm games, or dexterity based games. Absolutely no strategy and no luck involved.
True, there are games that are as simple as "there is only one way to move and the one who moves like that the best wins". I guess I would have to specify the argument to games with a direct player interaction of some kind.
Furthermore, even games that require strategic thinking are not automatically RTS games. RTS is not equal to strategy game. Thats why the R and the T is there in the name.
And I didn't say so. I explicitely said that having strategy applies to any game not based upon random interactions (which you are right is not 100% correct, see above), not just RTS games.
And perhaps its true that you could make an RTS with only 2 units, no highground advantage, no resources, no positional play, no other kinds of micro or macro play and you might end up with an RTS thats super easy to learn and super beginner friendly. But that is a very unrealistic case thats never going to happen.
I gave an example. You can have all of those elements and still have the strategy be easy to understand in my opinion. Great examples of very easy to understand RTS games are tug-of-war games. Take Desert Strike: it has economy, it has tech up, it has composition building, it has positional advantages and you can even micromanage certain units to a small degree. But to play it on a basic level some basic knowledge about units and the economy are enough. It is superbeginnerfriendly - and Desert Strike is still far more complex than it needs to be, because there are so many units that are plain noob-traps and offer no strategic depth anyways.
|
Hard to say if cheese is OP. Certain builds may be OP. Otherwise the opening just has more chance in it, and is more volatile. More mindgames. Less perfectly uniform, redundant macro openers. Look at the game of Poker. ... At some point, despite all skill, sc2 reduces to gambling. Players like to think their superior skills can escape all chance... to some degree yes. But ultimately risk is always there, looming at the end of your skillcap. I like there being alot of risk in a game. There's actually an artform to mindgames, when you start going map by map and getting into series and player personality / mass mentalities. Also... the opening was getting very boring for this game.
I play Z. I'm thinking of ZvZ. There is the spine rush which destroys hatch 1st, especially on terraform and bridgestone. Used to it was more holdable. But this change doesn't bother me. If I played Toss I'd probably be disturbed in general. I can only speak as a Z and say I like where the game is with 'cheese'.
|
@Hider:
I agree with everything you say, but how is that relevant to whether cheese is good or bad?
The point is that an RTS isn't defined by having a high learning barrier. It's just a consequence of how some gamedevelopers have designed certain RTS games. You can look at Dota-Wc3 to Heroes of the Storm as an example of how Blizzard have made a MOBA game much easier too learn (unfortunately they also made it easier to master, but that's a consequece of how they designed heroes which is somewhat unrelated to learning barrier).
If the RTS genre is to survive it is neccasary that gamedevelopers find ways to make the game easier to learn. Learning here = The amount of time you need to invest in order to be able to "play the game". You can still suck at the game, but if you can go right into the fun parts of the game without alot of preparation, the genre will have a much better probability of doing well.
The reason why cheese and allins raises the learning barrier is due two components:
1. Most people aren't having fun vs. Adepts-allins, Oracle allins, followed by cannon rush, DT's, Void Ray all in, 4gate.. At least that's my theory and I presented my reasoning for it in the previous posts.
2. As a consequence, they need to spend a lot of time learning how to defend that in order to "actually play the game" --> Higher learning barrier.
Skillcap is more about how good you can get at the "actual game". I define the actual game of an RTS to related to micro, multitasking and (some sort of) strategic decisions.
|
All-ins are not cheese. Cheese is generally a bad tactic that only works because your enemy doesnt know how to deal with it. Even if you dont scout cheese you can still beat it usually. A 6-pool or cannon rush, for example, is not very strong. Somewhat good players should not lose to this.
Proxy oracles and mass adept in LotV is not cheese by my book, its just OP and not fun.
I agree that all-ins and super powerful harassment builds should be weakened somehow. Perhaps a stronger defense of some kind could help deal with this. Maybe better highground advantage.
But cheese should stay in the game.
|
All-ins are not cheese. Cheese is generally a bad tactic that only works because your enemy doesnt know how to deal with it.
I agree with your definition of cheese, but it doens't imply that it cannot be an allineither. All-ins are defined by either outright winning the game or losing the game if they go wrong. Alot of cheese that either gives you a 95-5 lead or 5-95 disadvanatage is an allin.
Like if you do proxy gates, your are allining simultaneously (your betting your life on this build working out).
If on the other hand a specific cheese just gives you a 60-40/40-60 lead/disadvantage its clearly not an allin, but just a low-risk form of cheese.
I am obviously not against the latter form of cheese. It's kinda what I talk about when I say low risk/low reward aggression/harass.
|
nonsense, the way i position my hand in a rhythm game is part of the strategy
|
All-ins and/or cheese... or let's call them rush openers... should be designed in such a way that they punish heavily the most greedy builds. Against a safe opener, rush should lead to a fair but non-symmetric fight with no clear winner (unless, of course, someone does an obvious mistake).
To give you my most favorite example from the DH (Double Harvesting) showmatch: Scarlett vs PiliPili match 3. Scarlett went 10-poolgas but did almost no damage due to a proper defense. However, she was able to delay an expansion while expanding herself. At 6:30 she had a small supply advantage, and 15% income advantage.
That is kind of balance of cheese we should be aiming for! But it is hard... very hard to achieve. It is fragile, often depending on tiny things, maps, etc....
In LotV we perceive a "contraction of time" for resource gathering: you start with more workers, you get a lot of resources early game. However, your scouting speed, building construction and teching is not faster accordingly. This breakes a balance of money-vs-construction-time. Too many minerals, not enough time...
This is something we encountered in old DH10 mod, and remained somewhat problematic in DH9. Seems LotV is facing the exact same problems we hit when testing DH. Except that the community identified it as a potential problem early and we tried to do something about that (e.g. by going DH10->DH9). LotV on the other hand... let's just hope we will still see some changes in this department.
LotV contraction of time for resource gathering also remains in later time for different reason, increasing the result contrast even further... but that's a story for another topic...
|
On July 25 2015 23:59 TT1 wrote:
only if i get to play actionjesus
This can be arranged, better practice your macro!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
