| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
It never ends. If some of you haven't felt this way until only now derp. RTS design is just so much fun to tinker around with when it comes to catering to casuals and the like. The thing is.. RTS was never intended to be for casuals in the first place. | ||
|
ETisME
12842 Posts
It means players can follow something and know what they should expect and achieve. If one is to play whatever, it's going to take way longer for that person to polish his build if polishable at all | ||
|
nTzzzz
France30 Posts
Almost none of your arguments hold up to sound logic. I won't waste my time debunking your flawed reasoning because you're late to the party and Blizzard already made their decision (or rather shot themselves in the foot by announcing that release date, lucky you!). Enjoy your APM contest. I certainly won't enjoy this one dimensional shallow game. I'll just quote someone I agree with. On October 04 2015 11:11 paralleluniverse wrote: TLO's core argument that macro mechanics forces interesting choices because there is a limit to a player's attention so that prioritization is required is an argument to remove macro mechanics, not to keep them. Since human attention is finite, if it's not wasted on mindless clicking then that attention needs to be used more effectively in other areas of the game in order to win. TLO's argument that macro mechanics aren't mindless clicking because attention is finite, forcing prioritization, is fallacious. If we were to accept this, nothing would be mindless clicking. If you had to click the reactor to use the 2nd production queue, or if you had to click medivacs for each heal because it's not auto-cast, or click each unit individually to order them to move/attack then that also wouldn't be mindless clicking because you are forced to prioritize these actions in a time where your attention is required, such as when you're getting harassed. So this notion from TLO of what determines mindless clicking is everything else but that click itself is absurd, and exactly backwards. What determines whether injects or manual cast medivac heals is mindless isn't everything else, but the action itself. It's about choice. If it's virtually always better to cast injects or medivac heals than not, then requiring it to be manually clicked is mindless clicking, because it's not a choice, it's a artificial UI gimmick designed to frustrate and hinder your attempts to implement the choices that you want to make. TLO's claim is that these mindless clicks forces people into making interesting choices. But removing these mindless clicks would force people into making even more interesting choices or else they will lose. I'll add we saw in Archon mode what the extra clicks could be used for. I don't understand how anyone could think it made for a stale or less interesting game... | ||
|
nTzzzz
France30 Posts
On October 04 2015 05:12 ZAiNs wrote: It's sad how many people think they know more than someone who's played the game for 6-10 hours a day for the last 5 years... You can think larva inject is boring to use, or uninteresting to watch, but everything TLO said is undisputable. Appeal to authority over sound logic... This doesn't leave much room for any kind of progress. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On October 04 2015 23:09 nTzzzz wrote: Hi TLO. I disagree wholeheartedly. MM are an aberration. Almost none of your arguments hold up to sound logic. I won't waste my time debunking your flawed reasoning because you're late to the party and Blizzard already made their decision (or rather shot themselves in the foot by announcing that release date, lucky you!). Enjoy your APM contest. I certainly won't enjoy this one dimensional shallow game. I'll just quote someone I agree with. I'll add we saw in Archon mode what the extra clicks could be used for. I don't understand how anyone could think it made for a stale or less interesting game... Archon Mode IS NOT about more clicks being used, it is about more attention in general being used which is quite a bit different | ||
|
nTzzzz
France30 Posts
On October 04 2015 23:51 The_Red_Viper wrote: Archon Mode IS NOT about more clicks being used, it is about more attention in general being used which is quite a bit different Why do you nitpick over things that bear no relevance to the point I'm making? | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On October 05 2015 00:20 nTzzzz wrote: Why do you nitpick over things that bear no relevance to the point I'm making? Seems pretty relevant actually. You're saying archon mode is proof that games are 'better' with more 'useful' clicks, but more clicks is just one part of what you get in archon mode. Like TLO says in his article, focus is a resource, and in archon mode you have 2x it which is more important than the increased number of possible clicks. | ||
|
nTzzzz
France30 Posts
On October 05 2015 00:26 ZAiNs wrote: Seems pretty relevant actually. You're saying archon mode is proof that games are 'better' with more 'useful' clicks, but more clicks is just one part of what you get in archon mode. Like TLO says in his article, focus is a resource, and in archon mode you have 2x it which is more important than the increased number of possible clicks. No. TLO is saying: On October 03 2015 23:09 Liquid`TLO wrote: I believe that if both players are able to focus mostly on the micro management of their units, we'll end up with less interesting posturing of units. Both players will have their guard up constantly which, in the end, due to defender's advantage, will discourage, not encourage engagements. I'm saying more clicks (or "attention", whatever you want to call it) allocated to other things than single player tasks, far from preventing players from distinguishing themselves, makes for a way more dynamic gameplay. So does slowing down the economic acceleration rate. Injects really have no other point than making the game artificially difficult and are detrimental to the game in many ways. Contrary to what TLO is saying, there is an infinite amount of interesting things we could be doing with the extra clicks / attention. This is really common sense. I don't know how you can fail to acknowledge that. What I'm saying is that if you do need evidence, Archon mode makes it pretty obvious: it provides players with more clicks and attention that we will ever have in 1v1 (even with MM removed) and the gameplay is anything but stale. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On October 04 2015 11:11 paralleluniverse wrote: TLO's core argument that macro mechanics forces interesting choices because there is a limit to a player's attention so that prioritization is required is an argument to remove macro mechanics, not to keep them. Since human attention is finite, if it's not wasted on mindless clicking then that attention needs to be used more effectively in other areas of the game in order to win. TLO's argument that macro mechanics aren't mindless clicking because attention is finite, forcing prioritization, is fallacious. If we were to accept this, nothing would be mindless clicking. If you had to click the reactor to use the 2nd production queue, or if you had to click medivacs for each heal because it's not auto-cast, or click each unit individually to order them to move/attack then that also wouldn't be mindless clicking because you are forced to prioritize these actions in a time where your attention is required, such as when you're getting harassed. So this notion from TLO of what determines mindless clicking is everything else but that click itself is absurd, and exactly backwards. What determines whether injects or manual cast medivac heals is mindless isn't everything else, but the action itself. It's about choice. If it's virtually always better to cast injects or medivac heals than not, then requiring it to be manually clicked is mindless clicking, because it's not a choice, it's a artificial UI gimmick designed to frustrate and hinder your attempts to implement the choices that you want to make. TLO's claim is that these mindless clicks forces people into making interesting choices. But removing these mindless clicks would force people into making even more interesting choices or else they will lose. I don't know who you are and what skill level you've achieved in SC, but I feel like the experience of playing at a pro level will tend to make some things clear that you are mistaken about. You seem very much against mindless clicking, but what is mindless clicking? Doing tasks without having to make any significant decisions? The thing is, at the pro level, almost everyone knows what they ought to be doing for the vast majority of tasks. There are three levels you can judge a player's knowledge: what he does in competitive games, what he does in non-competitive games (when there's no pressure), and what he says he should have done when watching the replay. Watching players on stage against the best in the world, you'll see a lot of mistakes. But 90%+ of mistakes are things the player can immediately point out in replay, and every other pro would agree on the mistake and what should have been done. So are all those things mindless tasks, since the optimal course of action was obvious but simply couldn't be executed when needed? TLO cuts to the core of the issue by talking about choosing the way you want to play by focusing on the things you want to focus on. The tasks themselves are rarely interesting, at least for a pro player, but the decision of what task to focus on is very interesting and will not have such an easy consensus among pros. Pros will agree "yes you should have been warping in right now" and "yes you needed to be casting force fields right now" but when the demands are simultaneous, which one is the higher priority? When it's a close call, that is the interesting choice. And since SC is so fast paced with so many tasks to do, you will enjoy making those kinds of decisions many times a game if you choose to be aware of them. Otherwise, especially for less competitive player, you have the freedom to focus on whatever you think is fun. The two important things are that (1) a variety of tasks are in the game and (2) the demands on the player to execute the tasks are frequently more difficult than physically/mentally possible. If either of those things start coming up short, then the game can start to become stagnant very quickly. I can't imagine the RTS that would satisfy you. I don't see it as possible to start with SC2 and just modify it in some ways to create the RTS you want full of meaningful clicks. I think you'd just break SC2. What I know of games, there are four ways things get interesting: (1) too difficult to execute perfectly all the time [aiming in shooters, micro/macro/multitask in SC2, micro and map awareness in MOBAs, combos in fighters, teamwork in any team game] (2) too difficult to know what to do [strategy in all games] (3) randomness as a game mechanic [chance to proc or crit in MOBA, drawing cards in any card game, dice rolls in board games, shooting low ground to high ground in SC:BW, scarabs] (4) limited information of your opponent [fog of war in MOBA/RTS, when opponent's cards are face down in card games, shooters are first person view only with limited or no radar, fighters you don't know what your opponent's next move is -- actually important for all real-time games] Card games and board games define themselves by not having any #1 at all, so they're just about figuring out what to do and randomness. If you take just #1 and #4, then you get fighter games. #4 is the essence of Rock Paper Scissors. When there's limited information in a game, it does nothing more than create chaos and invite players to gain advantages by winning Rock Paper Scissors. SC2 is #1 cranked all the way up, and since it's so high, most tasks themselves are not going to be high on #2. But every game of SC2 is high on #2. It's just that when you're doing 200+ apm, most if it simply can't be high on #2. And without the unpredictability created by #1, as players do some things well and other things poorly in different amounts every game, sometimes on purpose according to their style, #2 would suffer. There's an important synergy between them. You can produce unpredictability with #3 and #4, which would make #2 more complex, but SC2 has kind of shunned #3 and Dota and LoL and HS players and fans often hate it and no SC2 fans are asking for it so I'll just assume we don't want it. And as for #4, it is just RPS like I said and honestly we have plenty of it already and too much of it is not going to satisfy what most RTS players want. There's no room or desirability to crank it up. Card games like Magic and HS and games like Dota and League and Heroes can get more out of #2 by adding more and more cards and more and more heroes to the game. Every time you add one, it affects every composition/deck and every interaction with opposing compositions/decks. And also since they're just so imbalanced, every balance patch helps #2 as well. But SC2 is stuck with a limited number of units. It does get new maps though, which help. Of course there's Chess, which contains none of #1, #3 or #4. It doesn't have new pieces added to the game or have its rules changed or get new boards. It is just pure #2 sitting comfortably beyond what's humanly possible. So why not make SC2 more like Chess? What it comes down to is that SC2's identity is tied up in #1 and it's tied up in its particular way of achieving difficulty in execution -- its fast pace and simultaneous but exclusive demands on the player's attention. There's no way to maintain that and also become more like Chess. At least I don't know it. Taking small steps closer toward it only makes a shittier SC2. You'd have to take a leap toward it, and drop SC's identity in the process, in order to land on a good game. TLO's post is assuming that we're on board with #1, and given that, this is the way it must be implemented in order to create the most interesting game possible overall. It's not about piling on the mechanical difficulty but rather being forced to stretch out in different directions, for the sake of #2, not for the sake of #1. Too many directions would be bad as well, but lightening up the macro demands would reduce the stretch too much. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
Aocowns
Norway6070 Posts
On October 05 2015 01:28 mishimaBeef wrote: I wish somehow the game was designed around 60-120 apm. Then instead of "epic multitasking" we would have "epic decision making". Someone smash together chess and brood war BibleThump Then players like elfi would finally be good enough to wim wcs!!!!!!!!!!!! What a beautiful world we're imagining | ||
|
Fran_
United States1024 Posts
| ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
Damn that Nony post is beautiful. | ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3135 Posts
| ||
|
todespolka
221 Posts
On October 03 2015 23:52 Jaedrik wrote: Then I'll define so you catch my meaning properly. Viable is relative to skill level, but is objective. That is, there are definitely strategies that will more often secure victory at certain skill levels. What I'm saying, again, is that there could be many more viable strategies at most or all levels of play if macro wasn't so gosh dang important and complex, and micro had more depth. But I don't get what you mean about improvement. There are such things as skill development and mastery, and intuitiveness directly impacts these things. Both are made harder if things are unintuitive. Edit 50000: You don't fall into the "vast majority" that the other gentleman talked about, sir, that's all there really is to that. Fun isn't just subjective, it's normative. Normally, complexity that doesn't add 'enough' (the subjective element) depth is not fun for people. For most people, it isn't enough. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with his generalization. It's an accurate one methinks. The question is if sc2 is really that what you describe. I dont believe it is. Sc2 isnt complex. Everything is in fact self explanatory. You dont need to know spells, items, units and so on just as in other games. The only rules you have to know in before are that you should make workers, build, create an army, destroy the opponents buildings and thats it. You dont have to know anything else to have fun. If you want to know what a rax is or does you just click on it and it explains to you. The information is delivered in small pieces that way. But macro is a big part of classical rts. If you remove it sc2 isnt an rts game anymore. There are other games in which you can play army vs army without building anything but these arent classical rts games. But you would be suprised how much micro matters in lotv. An example of my games: The terran was on two base i was on 4 saturated bases but i could not close out the game because of micro. I had also a game other way around which i could drag out simply by microing better than the protoss. The macro mechanics in sc2 arent difficult. I dont know why people act like that. You dont need perfect injects to win a game. You need enough injects to max out and thats it. Even silver players can do that which is a fact (proven by statistics). In lotv it gets even easier. You have to inject every 2-3 min in midgame until you are maxed. After that you can inject every 5 min. We dont have to play like pro players to have fun in this game and a lot more is possible than you think. If qxc wins with only reapers consistently vs top masters it means micro and multitasking matter more than you think. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
On October 05 2015 01:39 Aocowns wrote: Then players like elfi would finally be good enough to wim wcs!!!!!!!!!!!! What a beautiful world we're imagining Elfi has best decision making? | ||
|
nTzzzz
France30 Posts
On October 05 2015 01:52 todespolka wrote: But macro is a big part of classical rts. If you remove it sc2 isnt an rts game anymore. There are other games in which you can play army vs army without building anything but these arent classical rts games. You know what's supposed to be a big part of real time strategy games? Strategy... Sure, macro is a part of RTS too but nobody's talking about removing macro. We're merely talking about removing MM. The reason is those add an artificial layer of complexity / difficulty while adding no depth / strategic choices to the game. They are even reducing your strategic options by forcing you to focus your attention primarily on executing your macro boosters on time. Please stop telling us to go play other games. We like SC2. Do you hear us telling you to go play a stupid arcade game because all you care about is the game being difficult? | ||
|
rockslave
Brazil318 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 04 2015 13:56 vOdToasT wrote: Just like the video you used says - Depth is purchased with complexity, and it is preferable to have as much depth as possible with as little complexity as possible. The unavoidable implication of this is that the more complexity you are willing to tolerate, the more depth you are rewarded with. I am advocating for keeping the depth given by the extra complexity of apm requirements. If you want a delicious meal, some one is going to have to put in time and effort in to not only preparing that meal, but also honing his skills and acquiring the necessary knowledge. The truly sweet and worthwhile things in life, are those that are hard to reach. You don't seem to understand that depth and complexity are not actually related. There is no natural corellation between depth and complexity, a game can be needlessly complex without offering any additional depth. Imagine a version of tic-tac-toe where, in order to make any move, you had to recite a speech based on whether you were X's or O's, perform a secret handshake accordingly, and then assemble the pen you would use to make your mark. All of this is very complicated, but adds absolutely nothing to the depth of creating a line of 3 X's or O's. Likewise, macro boosters offer little strategic depth, while raising complexity in multiple ways. The idea that increasing complexity likewise increases depth is wholely erroneous. The goal of design should be to increase depth in whatever way you can, while minimizing complexity. It is not something to be sought after, it is something to be avoided. The trap comes when things that naturally increase depth also happen to increase complexity, so people fallaciously equate the two. On October 04 2015 23:51 The_Red_Viper wrote: Archon Mode IS NOT about more clicks being used, it is about more attention in general being used which is quite a bit different It's both. Archon Mode reduces the complexity of the game by reducing the mental and physical burden by splitting it between two players. What it does is it gives an individual player twice as much time to manage each individual task they must perform, giving them both extra attention and extra opportunity to click things. And I reckon nTzzzz means to say you have more of both to begin with. | ||
|
Aocowns
Norway6070 Posts
It's not farfetched to think that relatively bad overall players will pull more wins with neat strategies is what i meant | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
Replay Cast
Escore
PiG Sty Festival
CranKy Ducklings
PiG Sty Festival
Patches Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
