|
On December 26 2009 09:32 ucsdt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2009 08:09 Kiarip wrote:
As I said before, what you call "strategy." Can not be hard in an RTS. Both RTS's and TBS use methods of creating ACTUAL strategic depth in the respective genres. In TBS (chess for instance,) you can only make 1 move per turn, so this opens up a lot of different positions and possibilities, and it creates depth, because you have to chose between several moves, all of which may look good. RTS is similar on a small scale, because you have to prioritize your actions, and even though you do a lot of things in a small frame of time there's a limit to how many things you can actually do. A perfect execution RTS will be like Chess where you can make more than one move per turn... Except, RTS isn't a full information game, so it's probably going to completely degenerate into rock paper scissors.
So yes, RTS's always have to retain a small "physical" factor of APM in order to retain its strategic depth. I say "physical" because that's what people argue when they say that high apm requirements should be done away with in "strategy" games, but in reality APM is barely if at all physical. I can spam away random keys on the keyboard, and mouse at the same time and get like 1200 APM, but as you can probably guess I can't play starcraft at that APM, it's because APM mostly isn't physical (it's largely muscle memory which has more to do with your brain than your muscles.) The only semi-viable argument is that you're doing repetitive mindless tasks, which I guess you are, but as I said earlier it's not the tasks that you are doing that counts, it's the decisions you make when you decide that that's what you're gonna do with your attention instead of some other thing that you may have wanted to do.
Perfect execution in RTS would be nothing at all like Chess where you can make more than one move per turn, because units are still limited by their movement speed. Additionally, even though RTSs are not complete information games, they do not degenerate into rock paper scissors because people can and do scout. "Perfect" execution does not change that at all. You are right in that its the decisions you make that count. An arbitrary apm sink only gets in the way of that.
You misunderstood everything I wrote, and everything you wrote is wrong.
edit:
I guess I'l elaborate.
First of all. perfect execution RTS is MUCH like chess where you get to move every single piece in the same turn. In chess units are constricted by mobility also... they can only go so far in 1 move.
Ok, but if you send a worker to scout, and I don't and I guess the build order that you're doing right, then you wasted mining time, and I didn't and if you try to change the build you're doing, you've wasted even more money so at that point I could have very well won the game.
Also, let's not pretend like scouting is an absolute given in the game. It gets denied all the time.
Perfect execution changes it a lot, because perfect execution introduces hard-counters in build orders, while without being able to perfectly execute hard counters don't exist, just like they shouldn't.
An arbitrary APM sink doesn't get in they way of making decisions. First of all I'm not going to dare to call anything in SC an arbitrary APM sink, if you want to name me one, then go ahead. I assume you're talking about some of the APM-intensive mechanics...
Well guess what, here's how it works.
Every action in RTS has a cost. Since the game is played in real time you pretty much have to allocate your time, and this is where 95% of all the decision-making lies. If you make an RTS that's as strategically deep as starcraft is now , but has no Mechanical requirements (probably an impossible feat.), then I can add mechanical requirements to the game, and automatically make it 20 times more strategic. That's it.
Now obviously some people are able to do more actions in a given period of time, but that's something you have to live with if you want the game to be actually good. Also ability to do more actions in a smaller amount of time is way more mental than physical, and not only that it's accessible to just about everyone through practice, so saying that it has no place in a game that's meant to serve as a competitive medium is just nonsense.
|
On December 26 2009 08:09 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2009 16:38 L wrote:It will always be easy relatively to how difficult the decision making is during its execution How so? Assume there's zero interface barrier; the execution of the strategy becomes a given, while the creation of it becomes by default more difficult. No it doesn't become more difficult by default. Show nested quote +The magnitude of how different the two difficulties are is the object of the discussion itself. As the interface barrier decreases, the amount of difficulty that a variably complex strategy component needs to kick in increases in order to reach a similar plateau.
Ok... so if there's zero interface barrier, then the game is as good as a TBS. Meaning it will be solved by computers, and you'll be looking at a sheet of paper, or a long text file for all your strategies. Or you could program an AI to play it perfectly with ease. What you call strategy will always be easy. What strategy actually is, isn't easy because it includes a lot of small strategical decisions about the players' allocation of attention, and multitask, which exponentiates the possibilities in the game, and therefore its depth. Show nested quote +
If you think it should, the execution needs to pick up the slack. If you think it should be hard, then it can either be hard enough to supplant an execution barrier, or it can be too simple to warrant an elimination of said barrier.
As I said before, what you call "strategy." Can not be hard in an RTS. Both RTS's and TBS use methods of creating ACTUAL strategic depth in the respective genres. In TBS (chess for instance,) you can only make 1 move per turn, so this opens up a lot of different positions and possibilities, and it creates depth, because you have to chose between several moves, all of which may look good. RTS is similar on a small scale, because you have to prioritize your actions, and even though you do a lot of things in a small frame of time there's a limit to how many things you can actually do. A perfect execution RTS will be like Chess where you can make more than one move per turn... Except, RTS isn't a full information game, so it's probably going to completely degenerate into rock paper scissors. So yes, RTS's always have to retain a small "physical" factor of APM in order to retain its strategic depth. I say "physical" because that's what people argue when they say that high apm requirements should be done away with in "strategy" games, but in reality APM is barely if at all physical. I can spam away random keys on the keyboard, and mouse at the same time and get like 1200 APM, but as you can probably guess I can't play starcraft at that APM, it's because APM mostly isn't physical (it's largely muscle memory which has more to do with your brain than your muscles.) The only semi-viable argument is that you're doing repetitive mindless tasks, which I guess you are, but as I said earlier it's not the tasks that you are doing that counts, it's the decisions you make when you decide that that's what you're gonna do with your attention instead of some other thing that you may have wanted to do.
Show me all the turn-based wargames where you can move all units in a turn which has totally mapped strategy in a text file.
You provided no proof why turnbased game would need to have limited number of pieces moving simultaneously to retain strategic depth, which is probably because there is none.
And a game where mechanics plays a big part is much more easier to make an AI that beats humans than in a game thats just strategy, since computers suck at complex strategy but can be awesome mechanically (see BW AI threads for example), totally contrary to what you say.
|
On December 26 2009 10:20 JohannesH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2009 08:09 Kiarip wrote:On December 25 2009 16:38 L wrote:It will always be easy relatively to how difficult the decision making is during its execution How so? Assume there's zero interface barrier; the execution of the strategy becomes a given, while the creation of it becomes by default more difficult. No it doesn't become more difficult by default. The magnitude of how different the two difficulties are is the object of the discussion itself. As the interface barrier decreases, the amount of difficulty that a variably complex strategy component needs to kick in increases in order to reach a similar plateau.
Ok... so if there's zero interface barrier, then the game is as good as a TBS. Meaning it will be solved by computers, and you'll be looking at a sheet of paper, or a long text file for all your strategies. Or you could program an AI to play it perfectly with ease.
Either way, you're still left answering 'should strategy be easy'.
What you call strategy will always be easy. What strategy actually is, isn't easy because it includes a lot of small strategical decisions about the players' allocation of attention, and multitask, which exponentiates the possibilities in the game, and therefore its depth.
If you think it should, the execution needs to pick up the slack. If you think it should be hard, then it can either be hard enough to supplant an execution barrier, or it can be too simple to warrant an elimination of said barrier.
As I said before, what you call "strategy." Can not be hard in an RTS. Both RTS's and TBS use methods of creating ACTUAL strategic depth in the respective genres. In TBS (chess for instance,) you can only make 1 move per turn, so this opens up a lot of different positions and possibilities, and it creates depth, because you have to chose between several moves, all of which may look good. RTS is similar on a small scale, because you have to prioritize your actions, and even though you do a lot of things in a small frame of time there's a limit to how many things you can actually do. A perfect execution RTS will be like Chess where you can make more than one move per turn... Except, RTS isn't a full information game, so it's probably going to completely degenerate into rock paper scissors. So yes, RTS's always have to retain a small "physical" factor of APM in order to retain its strategic depth. I say "physical" because that's what people argue when they say that high apm requirements should be done away with in "strategy" games, but in reality APM is barely if at all physical. I can spam away random keys on the keyboard, and mouse at the same time and get like 1200 APM, but as you can probably guess I can't play starcraft at that APM, it's because APM mostly isn't physical (it's largely muscle memory which has more to do with your brain than your muscles.) The only semi-viable argument is that you're doing repetitive mindless tasks, which I guess you are, but as I said earlier it's not the tasks that you are doing that counts, it's the decisions you make when you decide that that's what you're gonna do with your attention instead of some other thing that you may have wanted to do. Show me all the turn-based wargames where you can move all units in a turn which has totally mapped strategy in a text file.
Obviously I made a pretty general statement here that has exceptions, and I don't even know that many turn-based wargames, but most of them are pretty different from each other from what I gather.
So I'll just say this instead, give me an example of any turn-based game, and I will research it, go through the rules and find the particular rule (which is most likely a limitation,) which does the same thing that mechanical requirements do in RTS (aka. keep it from turning into something incredibly simple.)
You provided no proof why turnbased game would need to have limited number of pieces moving simultaneously to retain strategic depth, which is probably because there is none.
I don't have a formal proof, but here's the idea behind it. I'm using chess as an example. Say instead of moving just one piece a turn, you can move every piece once in a turn. Obviously white will have a huge advantage, but let's ignore that. The way you're gonna go about solving this, is you can look at every move every piece can make, and then you choose the most favorable option, and you do it. You never actually have to make decisions between moving different pieces. Mathematically if you can narrow down the possible moves of every piece only to the ones that are good, the game has more scenarios if you can only move one piece at a time, then if you make the "good" move with every piece in the same turn.
And a game where mechanics plays a big part is much more easier to make an AI that beats humans than in a game thats just strategy, since computers suck at complex strategy but can be awesome mechanically (see BW AI threads for example), totally contrary to what you say.
I agree. A game where you need mechanics is easier to have an AI which is impossible to beat by a human player, but that's because it's pretty basic stuff to code an AI that has perfect mechanics, and once you have something that has perfect mechanics you can easily figure out the best strategy, because the options are going to be so much fewer...
I agree, let's look at the BW AI threads... If units were able to move like that all on their own just from you pressing the "micro" button, then think about all the things (units, techniques, strategies,) etc. which would become completely useless, because counters would be so incredibly hard.
What you said, and videos that are posted do not contradict my point however. I never said that "Mechanics are hard strategically." They obviously aren't. Like many people have said they are actually rather repetitive.
The strategical difficulty comes in WHEN the mechanical requirements are harder than what is humanly possible, so you have to CHOOSE not only what is the optimal thing to do in this situation (aka your strategy,) but how, in what order and with what emphasize you're going to execute it, as well how well you can prioritize your attention as you have a constant stream of information coming in at you to which you have to respond in real-time. That is why mechanical requirements add strategic depth.
|
On December 26 2009 07:43 L wrote:
Its rather simple. I can make a decision and simply not be able to execute it because of a mechanical requirement and not because my mind isn't able to multitask. That's not always a bad thing, but when its as pervasive as it is in starcraft, it becomes an issue with the ability of the game to serve as a competitive medium, which is another one of its core attributes.
Put another way; If i want to move 40 units from point A to point B, why is it that i need 4 hotkeys and 12 interface interactions to issue a single command? The onus here shouldn't be on my justification that this restriction is restrictive, but rather the reverse; why is it a part of the starcraft 'feel' and is it a part of the 'feel' that has aged well?
No one has, thus far, moved forward and suggested a single reason other than 'time management', yet by the above admissions regarding the skill ceiling, as long as useful actions can be taken, useless interface hassles aren't required to fill that gap.
From the prior admission about the downright terrible nature of starcraft D and the current insistence that its the balance of mechanical requirement and strategy that makes starcraft fun, or defines its 'feel' (which isn't a given, mind you) are both very interesting. When we add the prior question "should strategy be easy" which was responded negatively to, we come to a rather universal theory.
-\Interfaces should cleanly accept decisions with as little impediment as possible, but the game should be complex enough to require important decisions to be made at high speed, while designed so that it is simple to watch.
Does this statement sound valid?
Honestly, I've said just about everything I've had to say and anything I probably said would just be a reiteration of my posts thus far. I think it's becoming clear to me that we have a fundamental and unresolvable disagreement stemming from different basic beliefs regarding the game and the genre as a whole. If someone looked at the situation from your point of view where the limit should not be your physical ability, but your mental ability, then all of your points are valid. My disagreement is simply that I do not believe that making the speed at which one's mind can multitask the barrier will automatically make for a better game.
However I think about it, someone's always going to be complaining. If physical challenge is present, the guy with slower hands is liable to whine about it. If the challenge is one of mental speed and accuracy, then the guy with the slower mind is liable to whine about it. So for one guy, one version of the game sucks and for the other guy, the other version of the game sucks... Is one person more right or wrong than the other? There's no end to the nonsense, really and this is all one silly and somewhat pointless argument (if it even is an argument) with no resolution because we all have different ideas of what makes for a better game. Why I'm still sitting here typing on this thread, I do not know. I think I have too much time on my hands this holiday. ^^;;
Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Have a Merry Christmas, guys. :D
|
On December 26 2009 10:33 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2009 10:20 JohannesH wrote:On December 26 2009 08:09 Kiarip wrote:On December 25 2009 16:38 L wrote:It will always be easy relatively to how difficult the decision making is during its execution How so? Assume there's zero interface barrier; the execution of the strategy becomes a given, while the creation of it becomes by default more difficult. No it doesn't become more difficult by default. The magnitude of how different the two difficulties are is the object of the discussion itself. As the interface barrier decreases, the amount of difficulty that a variably complex strategy component needs to kick in increases in order to reach a similar plateau.
Ok... so if there's zero interface barrier, then the game is as good as a TBS. Meaning it will be solved by computers, and you'll be looking at a sheet of paper, or a long text file for all your strategies. Or you could program an AI to play it perfectly with ease.
Either way, you're still left answering 'should strategy be easy'.
What you call strategy will always be easy. What strategy actually is, isn't easy because it includes a lot of small strategical decisions about the players' allocation of attention, and multitask, which exponentiates the possibilities in the game, and therefore its depth.
If you think it should, the execution needs to pick up the slack. If you think it should be hard, then it can either be hard enough to supplant an execution barrier, or it can be too simple to warrant an elimination of said barrier.
As I said before, what you call "strategy." Can not be hard in an RTS. Both RTS's and TBS use methods of creating ACTUAL strategic depth in the respective genres. In TBS (chess for instance,) you can only make 1 move per turn, so this opens up a lot of different positions and possibilities, and it creates depth, because you have to chose between several moves, all of which may look good. RTS is similar on a small scale, because you have to prioritize your actions, and even though you do a lot of things in a small frame of time there's a limit to how many things you can actually do. A perfect execution RTS will be like Chess where you can make more than one move per turn... Except, RTS isn't a full information game, so it's probably going to completely degenerate into rock paper scissors. So yes, RTS's always have to retain a small "physical" factor of APM in order to retain its strategic depth. I say "physical" because that's what people argue when they say that high apm requirements should be done away with in "strategy" games, but in reality APM is barely if at all physical. I can spam away random keys on the keyboard, and mouse at the same time and get like 1200 APM, but as you can probably guess I can't play starcraft at that APM, it's because APM mostly isn't physical (it's largely muscle memory which has more to do with your brain than your muscles.) The only semi-viable argument is that you're doing repetitive mindless tasks, which I guess you are, but as I said earlier it's not the tasks that you are doing that counts, it's the decisions you make when you decide that that's what you're gonna do with your attention instead of some other thing that you may have wanted to do. Show me all the turn-based wargames where you can move all units in a turn which has totally mapped strategy in a text file. Obviously I made a pretty general statement here that has exceptions, and I don't even know that many turn-based wargames, but most of them are pretty different from each other from what I gather. So I'll just say this instead, give me an example of any turn-based game, and I will research it, go through the rules and find the particular rule (which is most likely a limitation,) which does the same thing that mechanical requirements do in RTS (aka. keep it from turning into something incredibly simple.) I dont know so much about different competitive TBS's either, but those that come to my mind now have different kinds of random factors that do indeed bring in something similar to micro control of RTS's, making the game more unpredictable but naturally its different since the randomness is same for everyone.
Show nested quote +
You provided no proof why turnbased game would need to have limited number of pieces moving simultaneously to retain strategic depth, which is probably because there is none.
I don't have a formal proof, but here's the idea behind it. I'm using chess as an example. Say instead of moving just one piece a turn, you can move every piece once in a turn. Obviously white will have a huge advantage, but let's ignore that. The way you're gonna go about solving this, is you can look at every move every piece can make, and then you choose the most favorable option, and you do it. You never actually have to make decisions between moving different pieces. Mathematically if you can narrow down the possible moves of every piece only to the ones that are good, the game has more scenarios if you can only move one piece at a time, then if you make the "good" move with every piece in the same turn.
And there is much more possible turn end positions when you move every piece instead of one. If you got, say, 10 units with 2 different possible moves for each and the option to stand still, theres 10*2+1=21 (the +1 is the option of moving nothing) different ways to move into the next turn with 1 piece moving. And 3^10=59 049 different possibilities when you can move all units at once if they dont limit each others' possibilities to move. Obviously this is very abstract example but anyway... And most of those options in both cases arent good moves at all. Some turn there might be a clear obvious piece to move or formation to do, but I dont see why the mechanic with more possible moves would have less moves worth considering.
Show nested quote +
And a game where mechanics plays a big part is much more easier to make an AI that beats humans than in a game thats just strategy, since computers suck at complex strategy but can be awesome mechanically (see BW AI threads for example), totally contrary to what you say.
I agree. A game where you need mechanics is easier to have an AI which is impossible to beat by a human player, but that's because it's pretty basic stuff to code an AI that has perfect mechanics, and once you have something that has perfect mechanics you can easily figure out the best strategy, because the options are going to be so much fewer... I agree, let's look at the BW AI threads... If units were able to move like that all on their own just from you pressing the "micro" button, then think about all the things (units, techniques, strategies,) etc. which would become completely useless, because counters would be so incredibly hard.
Though if there was such "micro" button... It would screw up the current metagame completely and most likely there would be horrible racial imbalance, but it would still be a deep game, there would be new builds that suit this move&fire environment, you'd still need to know when to press the micro button, what units to make etc. and very small differences in build orders and army positionings would make the difference. But pretty surely it wouldnt be as fun as current SCBW unless there was all-encompassing balance changes to make it more diverse.
Mechanical requirements dont add depth, unless the game is very shallow otherwise. But they can change the strategies used totally - its just down to preference what kind of strategy game you want to play.
And obviously in any RTS good mechanics, both good mouse precision and good multitasking (which is more about your brain than your hands though) are useful - you simply cant make an interface good enough to eliminate that.
|
For 90% of the people who say this, this isn't true.
A reasonable typing speed on a normal QWERTY keyboard is 40 words per minute. Approximating to a word length of 5 letters, and including spaces, that's about 240 APM. If you can type at 40 WPM, you are capable of that speed. The only thing separating you from a player who can actually harness that into useful actions is the *mental* ability to string those into sensible actions. Pretty sure you know that your attempt to confuse muscle memory and keyboard dexterity with the mental exercise of making decisions is completely fallacious. According to your statement, 90% of starcraft players should be operating at 240 apm. That's simply not the case.
Is there the capacity to sit down and modify myself to suit an outdated interface? Sure, but I could also go and sit down and do the same for a harder version of the game, something that pretty much everyone has rejected. If I could theoretically spend 10 years mastering Starcraft D, does that change the fact that there's still a decision -> action barrier which is offputting for many people and which goes directly against the design principles underlying any interface? No.
Except that's not a physical limitation. It's a mental multitasking one. Hitting "1a2a3a4a" takes a negligible amount of time. Oh, so its actually my brain thinking "lets go, you 40 units from point A to point B" that's taking too long? See, I can make that snap judgement pretty much instantly. The hotkeying, 1a2a3a4a and such and the mental actions going into those interface interactions, however, aren't the initial decision itself.
Since I'm so slow at thinking "move from a to b", I challenge you to a game. I will type 'move units to b' to issue the command, whereas you will be forced to deal with the units in singular. You now get to type 'move unit 1 to b' 'move unit 2 to b' 'move unit 3 to b' and so on until 40. If you finish later than I do, you're simply mentally handicapped.
Get the difference? Well, you kinda do because you admit it here:
What takes time is dealing with units that are in a jumble of different hotkeys The jumble of different hotkeys? That's not the interface? It is, by definition! Awesome, we agree!
but this happens not because the interface is making things hard for you physically Oh wait, no we don't, because despite admitting that the interface is what's sapping your time, you now just refuse to admit the logical conclusion of your previous statement.
The competitive pool is always driven by those with the attitude and the will to compete: that regardless of the barriers in place, there is a desire to compete and to win. Ultimately, no interface restrictions will bar those with the will to compete at the highest level (particularly since most people, with practice, are perfectly capable of playing at the speed required for the higher levels of play). Oh, really? Is that so? Assuming you're correct, if the size of the pool of players that are exposed to the competitive version of the game is larger, the competitive pool will be larger, which is again an admission that accessibility increases competition. By contrast, however, I could also point to varying levels of activity in competitive mediums as proof your statement is false; If 'those with attitude and the will to compete' are competitors, why are they not competitors for every venue they enter? How does a competitive person adopt a method of competition? If your statement here was correct, every venue of competition would be saturated upon exposure, but that's not the case.
So you need an additional point, one which completely unravels your argument; people need to gain that competitive will somehow, and they sure as hell won't if they give up on the game, or its competitive incarnation due to a lack of accessibility. This obviously isn't the only factor in determining the size of the competitive pool, but saying that it isn't a factor at all is disingenuous.
The fact that the guy who's strategically strong, but whines about the interface inhibiting his progression would be able to beat C-level players instead of D-level players is irrelevant Why is this about someone beating C level players instead of D level players. If the C level players have that same competitive spirit you were talking about, they would still be beating the former D level players, right? Additionally, if you want to examine the iccup analogy, accessibility isn't about someone's rank on the ladder, its about getting them initiated on the ladder. This isn't a small issue; you had clan art, a proposed D-rank starleague, mentoring programs, etc. all designed to ease people into the game. The entire strategy section in TL as well as liquipedia could be directly equated to an attempt to increase the accessibility of starcraft to lukewarm players too.
But you're saying that player wouldn't change shit. Might as well tell everyone to not bother if that's the case. Hell, make the game harder to get into! We don't need new players!
Zero Hour's mechanics are an example brought up in a thread from several months back, but the admission was also made that because it's a game made to model modern combat, which takes place primarily at range, many of the abilities that force mapwide awareness don't have suitable analogues in the Starcraft universe. For one, the idea of melee combat is almost entirely incombatible with the type of combat Zero Hour was meant to simulate. Its rather irrelevant that a number of the mechanics wouldn't work in starcraft; the point is that you can have mapwide awareness with suitable mechanics and have them provide multitasking requirements in-game that are player and unit generated rather than interface generated.
Suppose you could force fire shots onto bare ground and that reavers didn't dud if you fired them that way, but since the trajectory was predetermined, you could dodge the scarab with quick reactions. Suddenly you've created a scenario within a unit that prompts actions which are meaningful from both parties, but doesn't stem from an interface limitation.
That's the type of micro interaction which was critical to making the encounters in zero hour exciting, and that's not something which is 'incompatible' with SC; you could easily rework the vast majority of broodwar units in small ways to create such interactions and completely keep within the feel of the game; many units already have such interactions already. You lay mines, I defuse them. You storm, I dodge. You cast swarm, I get fucking angry at your invincible units and irradiate the douchebag who keeps casting them. These are good actions in that the decision requirements are player driven, not interface driven. By contrast, when a scenario comes up such that I have 58 zerglings that I want to attack with, I first need to wrestle with the interface, not my opponent, before i can be satisfied that I'll even be able to give timely commands. Those decision requirements aren't good, since they aren't competitive; they have nothing to do with my opponent, and are thus extraneous to the entire experience of competition.
|
If physical challenge is present, the guy with slower hands is liable to whine about it. If the challenge is one of mental speed and accuracy, then the guy with the slower mind is liable to whine about it. So for one guy, one version of the game sucks and for the other guy, the other version of the game sucks... Is one person more right or wrong than the other? I really don't agree that this is a fundamental agreement, nor do I agree that my position is simply that reaction speed should be one's mental speed. I think the object of the interface is not to hinder one's decision making process, and that starcraft is a fundamentally competitive game which is based on decision making at its core. I put those two together and come up with what I have, and I'm fairly sure my universal statement won't be disagreed with, so this isn't a purely 'agree to disagree statement'.
It could be, though, but on the level of "i prefer x". If, however, you resort to that defence, you trigger the selfish elite criticism, because your preference is an exclusive one, rather than an inclusive one.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 26 2009 12:58 L wrote:
Pretty sure you know that your attempt to confuse muscle memory and keyboard dexterity with the mental exercise of making decisions is completely fallacious. According to your statement, 90% of starcraft players should be operating at 240 apm. That's simply not the case.
Those that try to generally do. There are plenty of 240 APM D and D- players that don't *do* anything with that APM. Those that don't either don't strive for that, or realize that without proper fundamentals in other areas, it won't go anywhere.
On December 26 2009 12:58 L wrote:
does that change the fact that there's still a decision -> action barrier which is offputting for many people and which goes directly against the design principles underlying any interface? No.
You're misinterpreting my argument. I'm not arguing that there isn't a decision->action barrier. I'm arguing that the barrier is primarily mental, and not physical, as has been implied/stated. Moreover, that mental barrier stands as a proxy for real, high-speed decisions. Is it better than having real decisions? No. But until real, thoughtful mechanics can be put in place, it's better than nothing.
On December 26 2009 12:58 L wrote:
Oh, so its actually my brain thinking "lets go, you 40 units from point A to point B" that's taking too long? See, I can make that snap judgement pretty much instantly. The hotkeying, 1a2a3a4a and such and the mental actions going into those interface interactions, however, aren't the initial decision itself.
Since I'm so slow at thinking "move from a to b", I challenge you to a game. I will type 'move units to b' to issue the command, whereas you will be forced to deal with the units in singular. You now get to type 'move unit 1 to b' 'move unit 2 to b' 'move unit 3 to b' and so on until 40. If you finish later than I do, you're simply mentally handicapped.
Once again, I'm not arguing that there isn't a barrier. I'm arguing that the barrier is mental. It's only a physical barrier for those who choose to MAKE it physical. 1a2a3a4a is effectively an effortless action, as is drag-select + hotkey once every 20-40 seconds (2 actions out of 60-90 per minute even for a slow player). The task is not "hotkey and move all your units as quickly as possible" which indeed does take some physical dexterity, but "remember to check your rally and hotkey the new units every production round", which takes the mental task of remembering to cycle back to your rally. Once you do that, moving the units IS virtually effortless.
Show nested quote + What takes time is dealing with units that are in a jumble of different hotkeys The jumble of different hotkeys? That's not the interface? It is, by definition! Awesome, we agree! Show nested quote +but this happens not because the interface is making things hard for you physically Oh wait, no we don't, because despite admitting that the interface is what's sapping your time, you now just refuse to admit the logical conclusion of your previous statement.
You completely missed the conclusion I was going for. My point was that IF you accomplish the mental task of checking your rally every production round, your units really shouldn't be in a jumble, because the number of units that stream out is very manageable, even for a poor player.
Is checking those rally's and drag-select+hotkey a menial task? Yes. But it is a mental task, not a physical one. As far as I'm concerned, until a better alternative can fill it's place, it's like dribbling in basketball--a task that underscores the need for a basic skill of the game (multitasking in this case) is better than no task at all.
Note: I'm cutting short the rest because I realize that, yeah, i was being pretty dumb when I wrote that.
Utlimately, I think we have the same goal, which you stated before:
Interfaces should cleanly accept decisions with as little impediment as possible, but the game should be complex enough to require important decisions to be made at high speed, while designed so that it is simple to watch.
However, I don't think reaching this ideal is something that can be done in a single step. The problem is, if you strip Starcraft of the interface elements, you really *don't* have enough complexity for important decisions to be made at high speed--there just aren't enough of them. Could you add more? Yes. But the number needed to fill the gap is too many for you to reasonably be able to do them *well* in a single game. Perhaps several sequels down the line maybe, but not right away. And until then, leaving a couple of the old eccentricities of the interface in a way that emphasizes multitasking in the way the SC1 interface does is better than leaving nothing there.
|
On December 26 2009 12:43 JohannesH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2009 10:33 Kiarip wrote:On December 26 2009 10:20 JohannesH wrote:On December 26 2009 08:09 Kiarip wrote:On December 25 2009 16:38 L wrote:It will always be easy relatively to how difficult the decision making is during its execution How so? Assume there's zero interface barrier; the execution of the strategy becomes a given, while the creation of it becomes by default more difficult. No it doesn't become more difficult by default. The magnitude of how different the two difficulties are is the object of the discussion itself. As the interface barrier decreases, the amount of difficulty that a variably complex strategy component needs to kick in increases in order to reach a similar plateau.
Ok... so if there's zero interface barrier, then the game is as good as a TBS. Meaning it will be solved by computers, and you'll be looking at a sheet of paper, or a long text file for all your strategies. Or you could program an AI to play it perfectly with ease.
Either way, you're still left answering 'should strategy be easy'.
What you call strategy will always be easy. What strategy actually is, isn't easy because it includes a lot of small strategical decisions about the players' allocation of attention, and multitask, which exponentiates the possibilities in the game, and therefore its depth.
If you think it should, the execution needs to pick up the slack. If you think it should be hard, then it can either be hard enough to supplant an execution barrier, or it can be too simple to warrant an elimination of said barrier.
As I said before, what you call "strategy." Can not be hard in an RTS. Both RTS's and TBS use methods of creating ACTUAL strategic depth in the respective genres. In TBS (chess for instance,) you can only make 1 move per turn, so this opens up a lot of different positions and possibilities, and it creates depth, because you have to chose between several moves, all of which may look good. RTS is similar on a small scale, because you have to prioritize your actions, and even though you do a lot of things in a small frame of time there's a limit to how many things you can actually do. A perfect execution RTS will be like Chess where you can make more than one move per turn... Except, RTS isn't a full information game, so it's probably going to completely degenerate into rock paper scissors. So yes, RTS's always have to retain a small "physical" factor of APM in order to retain its strategic depth. I say "physical" because that's what people argue when they say that high apm requirements should be done away with in "strategy" games, but in reality APM is barely if at all physical. I can spam away random keys on the keyboard, and mouse at the same time and get like 1200 APM, but as you can probably guess I can't play starcraft at that APM, it's because APM mostly isn't physical (it's largely muscle memory which has more to do with your brain than your muscles.) The only semi-viable argument is that you're doing repetitive mindless tasks, which I guess you are, but as I said earlier it's not the tasks that you are doing that counts, it's the decisions you make when you decide that that's what you're gonna do with your attention instead of some other thing that you may have wanted to do. Show me all the turn-based wargames where you can move all units in a turn which has totally mapped strategy in a text file. Obviously I made a pretty general statement here that has exceptions, and I don't even know that many turn-based wargames, but most of them are pretty different from each other from what I gather. So I'll just say this instead, give me an example of any turn-based game, and I will research it, go through the rules and find the particular rule (which is most likely a limitation,) which does the same thing that mechanical requirements do in RTS (aka. keep it from turning into something incredibly simple.) I dont know so much about different competitive TBS's either, but those that come to my mind now have different kinds of random factors that do indeed bring in something similar to micro control of RTS's, making the game more unpredictable but naturally its different since the randomness is same for everyone. Show nested quote +
You provided no proof why turnbased game would need to have limited number of pieces moving simultaneously to retain strategic depth, which is probably because there is none.
I don't have a formal proof, but here's the idea behind it. I'm using chess as an example. Say instead of moving just one piece a turn, you can move every piece once in a turn. Obviously white will have a huge advantage, but let's ignore that. The way you're gonna go about solving this, is you can look at every move every piece can make, and then you choose the most favorable option, and you do it. You never actually have to make decisions between moving different pieces. Mathematically if you can narrow down the possible moves of every piece only to the ones that are good, the game has more scenarios if you can only move one piece at a time, then if you make the "good" move with every piece in the same turn. I dont think theres any way to see an optimal move for each unit in a limited info situation, especially when the different units' moves affect each other so much. Finding the best possible move for a single unit is only relevant when the single move is all you do in that turn. If units move simultaneously, better to look at the different positions you can end up in at the end of the current turn. And there is much more possible turn end positions when you move every piece instead of one. If you got, say, 10 units with 2 different possible moves for each and the option to stand still, theres 10*2+1=21 (the +1 is the option of moving nothing) different ways to move into the next turn with 1 piece moving. And 3^10=59 049 different possibilities when you can move all units at once if they dont limit each others' possibilities to move. Obviously this is very abstract example but anyway... And most of those options in both cases arent good moves at all. Some turn there might be a clear obvious piece to move or formation to do, but I dont see why the mechanic with more possible moves would have less moves worth considering.
It's because you don't have to compare the value of moving 1 piece to the value of moving another piece. You only have to compare the value of the different moves of the same piece.
As for being how being able to move more than one piece leads to less actual possibilities, well just about any position after each player has completed a turn in this game of chess where each piece can move once per turn is also achievable with moving the pieces just one at a time no? However, the process that leads to each of those positions will involve way more decisions, since you would be choosing only one move per turn out of all the possible ones, and after each turn you take your opponent's move into account. So moving more than one piece per turn is in a way skipping a large portion of decision making that you have to make in the actual game to get to the same result.
Show nested quote +
And a game where mechanics plays a big part is much more easier to make an AI that beats humans than in a game thats just strategy, since computers suck at complex strategy but can be awesome mechanically (see BW AI threads for example), totally contrary to what you say.
I agree. A game where you need mechanics is easier to have an AI which is impossible to beat by a human player, but that's because it's pretty basic stuff to code an AI that has perfect mechanics, and once you have something that has perfect mechanics you can easily figure out the best strategy, because the options are going to be so much fewer... I agree, let's look at the BW AI threads... If units were able to move like that all on their own just from you pressing the "micro" button, then think about all the things (units, techniques, strategies,) etc. which would become completely useless, because counters would be so incredibly hard. I got the impression from your 1st post that you thought AI is easier to do for a game without hard mechanics, either I misintepreted you or you wrote it unclearly, but doesnt matter so much at this point Though if there was such "micro" button... It would screw up the current metagame completely and most likely there would be horrible racial imbalance, but it would still be a deep game, there would be new builds that suit this move&fire environment, you'd still need to know when to press the micro button, what units to make etc. and very small differences in build orders and army positionings would make the difference. But pretty surely it wouldnt be as fun as current SCBW unless there was all-encompassing balance changes to make it more diverse. Mechanical requirements dont add depth, unless the game is very shallow otherwise. But they can change the strategies used totally - its just down to preference what kind of strategy game you want to play. And obviously in any RTS good mechanics, both good mouse precision and good multitasking (which is more about your brain than your hands though) are useful - you simply cant make an interface good enough to eliminate that.
I didn't say that it would be easier to make an AI that would play the game better than humans in some aspects, when there's perfect mechanics. I said that you can more easily solve the game strategically when there's perfect mechanics, obviously once you've done that you can write an AI that plays "perfectly."
Obviously, if there is no perfect mechanics, then you can just write an AI that abuses it's ability to perfectly micro units, and once you have written the code for AI being able to do everything that's mechanical perfectly, then you could probably solve the game as well, and then code the strategy into the AI also, and have that play "perfectly" too, but that would require way more work.
However, the game won't degenerate from this solution of the game, because the players won't have the mechanics in order for this solution to hold completely valid.
An AI that only abuses perfect mechanics would probably be beatable by the way, via gimmicks.
|
On December 26 2009 12:58 L wrote:
Pretty sure you know that your attempt to confuse muscle memory and keyboard dexterity with the mental exercise of making decisions is completely fallacious. According to your statement, 90% of starcraft players should be operating at 240 apm. That's simply not the case.
no, because for 90% of starcraft players the bottleneck isnt how fast they can hit keys on a keyboad. 90% of starcraft players dont have the focus and multitasking to keep up.
On December 26 2009 12:58 L wrote:Is there the capacity to sit down and modify myself to suit an outdated interface? Sure, but I could also go and sit down and do the same for a harder version of the game, something that pretty much everyone has rejected. If I could theoretically spend 10 years mastering Starcraft D, does that change the fact that there's still a decision -> action barrier which is offputting for many people and which goes directly against the design principles underlying any interface? No.
you could do the same for an easier version of the game. everyone rejects the harder version of the game aswell as the easier version, because we are arguing for a balance. this was stated in heartoftofu's posts clearly. saying "you think it would be silly to make it more of a hurdle, therefore you admit it is currently a hurdle, therefore you admit it there is no reason to have the hurdle at all" is just wrong. you CAN NOT make a "many people" argument when sc1 is the most successful rts ever, do you seriously disagree here?
On December 26 2009 12:58 L wrote:Since I'm so slow at thinking "move from a to b", I challenge you to a game. I will type 'move units to b' to issue the command, whereas you will be forced to deal with the units in singular. You now get to type 'move unit 1 to b' 'move unit 2 to b' 'move unit 3 to b' and so on until 40. If you finish later than I do, you're simply mentally handicapped.
it takes a couple of seconds total to hotkey and move an army. if your army is already hotkeyed you can move is pretty much instantly. the real speed comes from thinking ahead of time you're going to want to move those units and fitting the attention in somewhere to do it without neglecting the other 10 things you want to do.
What takes time is dealing with units that are in a jumble of different hotkeys The jumble of different hotkeys? That's not the interface? It is, by definition! Awesome, we agree!
the jumble of hotkeys is talking about the player recalling what they've done with their units, where they're assigned and how they're organised.
but this happens not because the interface is making things hard for you physically Oh wait, no we don't, because despite admitting that the interface is what's sapping your time, you now just refuse to admit the logical conclusion of your previous statement.
your own inability to keep your units organised in your mind is sapping your time. your inability to remember to reorganise your units as they are created and destroyed is sapping your time.
then there is some junk then we get to the end of your post and the next one which can be summed up easily:
micro: good.
management: bad.
macro: bad.
then you basically sit there and pretend its not a matter of opinion. it is not a matter of preference. when we think 'a balance of mechanics and strategy is good' its because 'we prefer it', when you say 'i dont think my decision making should be limited by the interface' it somehow isnt preference, it is the divine word of god.
but hey, you support your argument with the notion "people who dont even play rts' would like it better this way!" i guess that does mean its not opinion.
|
I'm going to hate myself for this in the morning, but here's my last post before I go to sleep...
Once again, in response to L:
If you feel that your statement is universal and that we can all agree with it, what do you believe is the fundamental argument that has fueled the past 13 pages or so?
On December 26 2009 13:06 L wrote:
starcraft is a fundamentally competitive game which is based on decision making at its core.
You're right, nobody is arguing against this statement because it is meaningless since just about every game is based on decision making at its core. From Pac Man to Counterstrike, games are driven by how we decide to react to the given problem. I don't see why you would even bring up something so obvious. Perhaps it may have been a LITTLE more meaningful if you had said that strategy is the core of Starcraft, but even that would assume that you knew exactly what goals the developers had in mind when they designed the game. And even then, the word "strategy" is so vague...
On December 26 2009 13:06 L wrote:
I really don't agree that this is a fundamental agreement, nor do I agree that my position is simply that reaction speed should be one's mental speed.
In a previous post, you said the following:
On December 26 2009 07:43 L wrote:
Its rather simple. I can make a decision and simply not be able to execute it because of a mechanical requirement and not because my mind isn't able to multitask. That's not always a bad thing, but when its as pervasive as it is in starcraft, it becomes an issue with the ability of the game to serve as a competitive medium, which is another one of its core attributes.
Put another way; If i want to move 40 units from point A to point B, why is it that i need 4 hotkeys and 12 interface interactions to issue a single command? The onus here shouldn't be on my justification that this restriction is restrictive, but rather the reverse; why is it a part of the starcraft 'feel' and is it a part of the 'feel' that has aged well?
It certainly seems to me that you problem with the current interface is the fact that you feels that it hinders you from being able to control your units as fast as you could mentally wish them to move and that the ideal interface to unlock the "true" game would be one in which this wasn't the case. It's pretty obvious that you have a problem with the amount of physical activity in Starcraft required to control your units and production and this amount of activity which you personally feel to be excessive represents an obstacle or barrier. Nevermind the fact that we ultimately have to deal with reality, but let's say that we could make the game interface any way we wanted. What exactly would this ideal interface that has no barriers or hindrances between player and in-game action be like?
On December 26 2009 13:06 L wrote:
I think the object of the interface is not to hinder one's decision making process
Speaking of interfaces, why would you assume that the only object of a user interface is simply not to "hinder one's decision making process"? The UI is an integral part of any game and it can be designed with a number of purposes in mind beyond simply serving the sole purpose of being a means to controlling your character. Developers often design UI's with the feel they want the game to have in mind. Slight changes to the UI can often mean major changes in the way the game is played or how people perceive it. Please don't dismiss the purpose of the UI as being something so passive as simply staying out of the player's way.
As for why the UI is such a huge part of the Starcraft "feel" is self-explanatory if you think about it. The UI is the method by which we interact with the game and therefore we are constantly using it every moment we play Starcraft. Because the "feel" of Starcraft is the result of your experience with the game, it is only natural that something so pervasive as the UI becomes an integral part of how you relate with the game. The UI itself is part of the player experience. As for whether it has aged well, this is a debatable issue. There are plenty of people that believe it has aged just fine and quite obviously there are plenty of other people that believe that the UI is in need of serious revamping, updating, or redesigning. How the UI has "aged" is a completely subjective issue. I personally believe that the UI is due for some updating to make use of some of the newer capabilities we now have.
On December 26 2009 13:06 L wrote:I'm fairly sure my universal statement won't be disagreed with, so this isn't a purely 'agree to disagree statement'.
Just about the only "universal" statement you made was that Starcraft is a game about making decisions, which I already pointed out was an obvious statement and a relatively meaningless one at that. Your statement in regard to the object of the UI was, in your own words, your own belief and one based on your own view of what it should be and given that I disagree with it (along with several others, I'm sure), I think it's hardly a universal statement. So yes, this is purely an "Agree to Disagree" situation because both our opinions are based on our own preferences and beliefs in regard to what function the UI should serve and what makes for a good game. There's nothing universal about either of our beliefs and no amount of attempting to reconcile the rift with logic will make a difference because a logical argument is ultimately based on the given premise. Even logic is meaningless when we disagree on the premises involved.
On December 26 2009 13:06 L wrote:It could be, though, but on the level of "i prefer x". If, however, you resort to that defence, you trigger the selfish elite criticism, because your preference is an exclusive one, rather than an inclusive one.
I suppose if having a preference based on your beliefs automatically catagorizes you as a "selfish
elitist", then I'm guilty as is everyone else in the world. Please don't try to get on some sort of high horse by saying that I'm the only one here whose preference is exclusive rather than inclusive. Your own preference, if realized, would exclude the desires of all those who disagree with you, which in this case are the ones that believe that the physical challenge is an integral part of what defines Starcraft. If you want to say that it's not actually exclusive, but rather inclusive because these people could still play your ideal game, then I could argue that someone who disagrees with my preferences could still play my ideal game.
On a side note, it's ironic to me that we use the word "elitist" to describe people with a demeaning and condescending connotation because demeaning others and being condescending is pretty much what the elitist himself does.
One important lesson I've learned in life is: Rather than being so pretentious to assume that your own view is somehow more noble or right than the next guy because it happens to make sense to you, you really need to stop and learn that there are other people that have different views that are just as respectable as your own and upon realizing this, rather than continuing down the endless cycle of arguing the same points back and forth, you need to accept that there are differences that simply aren't going to be resolved and work from there to some sort of compromise. By saying "you", I don't mean you personally, L, but everyone (myself included). If there is a single universal truth that is evident in the world, it is that there are often times when people just can't come together and agree on something and it's not because one side is missing the truth, but rather because there is no higher truth that we can all acknowledge to be true.
________________
Edit 1. This is really going to be my last post here so feel free to have the final response if you like. I'd rather not continue to bother the public with so much text written in response to any single person so if you want to continue discussing one-on-one please feel free to PM me any time. ^^
________________
Edit 2. BTW, sorry if I sound hostile or agitated... Just had the most horrible Christmas ever. >.<
|
Typical socialist attitude :<
|
no, because for 90% of starcraft players the bottleneck isnt how fast they can hit keys on a keyboad. 90% of starcraft players dont have the focus and multitasking to keep up. Focus and multitasking to keep up with what, exactly? The mechanical requirement generated by the interface? Sure. 90% of starcraft players have that issue. Please stop confusing an instance of decision making with a mechanical requirement.
For instance, when I make a probe, am I really required to hotkey a nexus, select the nexus, select that I want to make a probe, then later return to the nexus and then given an order for the probe to mine? Mechanically I am. In terms of the decision I've made, by contrast, I already know I want a probe to be building before I make the first action. Do you honestly thing the bottleneck is in the process which is rapid and singular? Or the one which requires five actions? You're saying its the former when it clearly isn't. Again, the example of my moving 40 units is pretty clear; If i'm playing age of empires 2, my 40 units react with a single command when I tell them to move. If i'm playing starcraft, I need to hotkey then spread the groups then 1a2a3a4a. 12 actions versus 1 for equivalent decisions.
When this decision is significant: "I want to send my ultras first to absorb the first tank volley before the lings engage", the extra interactions have value. Where the decision isn't: "I just want to move these dudes from point A to point B" it isn't.
As for the rest of your post, especially that cute "micro good management bad macro bad" portion, there's far too much misrepresentation and fallacious argumentation to be taken seriously. You strawman repeatedly culiminating in a gross misrepresentation stating that I hate macro and management. Wrong. I hate poor interfaces. I love macro, and I love management. I've given micro examples solely because they're pretty visual and easy to picture.
You're right, nobody is arguing against this statement because it is meaningless since just about every game is based on decision making at its core. From Pac Man to Counterstrike, games are driven by how we decide to react to the given problem. I don't see why you would even bring up something so obvious. Perhaps it may have been a LITTLE more meaningful if you had said that strategy is the core of Starcraft, but even that would assume that you knew exactly what goals the developers had in mind when they designed the game. And even then, the word "strategy" is so vague...
Not every game is based on decision making at its core. Many games have decision making at a prominent feature of its play, but many are completely devoid of decision making. Many others have decision making in a subsidiary role compared to another game element. The fact that decision making is admitted "obvious" central pillar of what makes starcraft starcraft to the point that you assume it to be a trivial factor is telling; To use your language, the 'feel' of starcraft is so entwined with decision making that its a given.
You somewhat attempt to move from decision to strategy here, but that's not a worthwhile jump; I'm staying at decision because it encompasses far more than a strategic overview or plan that a player has; not only does the decision making process capture strategy, but it captures tactics as well.
It certainly seems to me that you problem with the current interface is the fact that you feels that it hinders you from being able to control your units as fast as you could mentally wish them to move and that the ideal interface to unlock the "true" game would be one in which this wasn't the case. It's pretty obvious that you have a problem with the amount of physical activity in Starcraft required to control your units and production and this amount of activity which you personally feel to be excessive represents an obstacle or barrier. This has nothing to do with 'me'. This has to do with the interface itself. I don't 'feel' that it hinders players from controlling their units in the ways they want, I know it does because its objectively true. Its categorically true and unarguable that the SC interface simply isn't efficient. The example with the 40 units is concrete proof; modern interfaces simply don't have this barrier included.
So is it an issue with the physical activity requirement? No. I've already stated that it would be perfectly fine to increase the physical activity requirement dramatically by increasing the amount of player created interactions. The question is whether or not the requirement of activity comes from the interface or whether it comes from an interactive element which is intuitive and rewarding.
What exactly would this ideal interface that has no barriers or hindrances between player and in-game action be like? We obviously don't have the capability to reach such a lack of interface so its impossible to describe accurately. The implication that a lack of precise definition makes the concept any less meritorious to pursue, however, is itself without merit. Note your reliance on the vague 'feel' for reference.
Speaking of interfaces, why would you assume that the only object of a user interface is simply not to "hinder one's decision making process"? I don't. Nor is it implied that the interface's purpose is to hinder one's decision making process.
Just about the only "universal" statement you made was that Starcraft is a game about making decisions False. The specific universal statement I made was emphasized with the use of a dash and was set apart in its own paragraph to highlight it. Starcraft being a game about making decisions isn't even a universal statement; its a statement about a particular, being starcraft itself.
So no, I can't agree with you that this is purely an opinionated matter, or at least not on the grounds that you've presented, seeing as they're addressing something which I never stated.
I suppose if having a preference based on your beliefs automatically catagorizes you as a "selfish elitist", then I'm guilty as is everyone else in the world. At this point I can tell you're a bit unhappy and clearly not bothering to read the full content of my writing. The selfish aspect was clearly linked to the fact that the preference is an exclusive preference as opposed to an inclusive preference. The only way an inclusive preference can be seen as exclusive is if you take it from the perspective of the 'elites' (really loaded and unaccurate word at this point, but whatever), given that their relative dominance and the applicability of their skillset will be moderately displaced in their minds. The fact that the preference is inclusive is lost on them, hence why sirlin attacks the view as selfish. So that's exactly what you do as follows:
Your own preference, if realized, would exclude the desires of all those who disagree with you Exclude the desires? How so? The current 'feel' of starcraft as you've described it is replicated; I haven't removed the need for multitasking. If anything, I've opened up far more multitasking. You're so stuck trying to fight against me that you're ignoring the fact that the suggestion and arguments presented don't form a break with your preferences in the least unless you're afraid that the ricochet benefits will be detrimental to you. The only way you can fundamentally disagree is if you believe that the interface's problems itself are a fundamental aspect of the 'feel' of starcraft, which doesn't seem to be the case given that you've already said you accept a number of improvements on the matter, and that you're against a harder interface.
Even if 'desires' have been 'excluded' (which would be quite a feat, mind you) the reverse can obviously be said of the other party, so its irrelevant if there are mutually exclusive preferences despite the fact that there aren't, in this case; Like I said, this isn't a matter solely based in opinion. The key here is that this goes beyond preference. It touches upon the size of the competitive pool, accessibility to the game, the intuitiveness of the design and so on. These aren't opinion matters; they're quantifiable qualities which appeal to the community that you're trying to satiate with 'feel'. I've attempted to boil down the basic qualities of said 'feel' objectively using relatively indisputable descriptions (which accordingly weren't disputed), and come to my own conclusions about what the core of the game is, but without presenting a complete credible alternative, I don't understand how this discussion can progress fruitfully.
So in that vein, tell me what your ideal starcraft 2 is composed of. Tell me why you play it, who you play it with, when you play it. Tell me your favorite mechanics, favorite units and why they're ideal to you.
One important lesson I've learned in life is: Relativism Yo, I shortened your paragraph. Relativism is useful for dismissing things you can't otherwise show to be incorrect. Just saying.
|
On December 26 2009 04:02 L wrote:
Yet if you changed something between SF1 and SF2 regarding blocking, it might seem relatively minor; many other games at the time had similarly radical changes implemented to them. At this point, there are many games that have 'hold back to block' as one of their mechanics. If genre standards are used instead of game title standards, the problem becomes even more acute; RTS games and games in general have been moving towards more automation.
Either way, the point is rather clear that you can maintain the 'feel' of a game despite revamping the game mechanics.
But it's all subjective, and the more you change how you interact with the UI the more you change the "feel" of the game. Whether or not this is base rests entirely on what the audience, often a mixed group, expects. In any case Tofu was suggesting those examples because they would be odd changes given the context surrounding SF that would give pause to players. The ones you give were probably debated heavily, but it's the kind of thing they've come to expect from SF sequels.
In any case you completely ignored what I had to say about the purpose of the Starcraft franchise and how Blizzard's own approach disagrees with the kind of radical approach you seem to have. Blizzard shows that they are being relatively conservative with the UI changes and Dustin Browder keeps on talking about wanting to preserve elements of Starcraft while giving them a new twist. That's the whole reason why the macro mechanics exist. Dustin Browder decided that macro was part of the "feel" of the game.
I'm not. If these mechanical requirements are removed, and the 'feel' is still the same, then it indicates that the location or content of the mechanical requirement is not indicative of a core element of the 'feel' of the game.
Well you keep on making it sound as if I and others are completely against all UI changes, which we're not. Every UI change you make will and in fact does change the feel to some extent and makes it into a slightly different game. Whether this is good or bad is mostly subjective and leads to subjective argument.
This section Needs to be chopped up a bit; Even if SC was currently fully automated with some sort of brain link between a player's mind and his units, the game would still have an unreachable skill ceiling. This is why sirlin says that starcraft players do their game a disservice by believing it requires skill ceiling extenders; the positioning and unit control aspect of the game alone is far too demanding for anyone to reach the skill ceiling.
If the game was played by a perfect computer than the skill ceiling would not exist. Since we are talking about real time, it's certainly possible that the skill ceiling of mind melded people would also be infinite. But it would also vastly change the game itself and the way it's played, leading to essentially a different game.
People are hesitant to remove the current skill tests because they define competitive Starcraft, which has been the most successful eSport, ever. Whether you like them or not. We are never guaranteed that when we remove skill tests we will still have a game that is sufficiently "Starcraft" enough for successful competition. War3 isn't all that different from Starcraft and it never became as successful, even though it too has an infinite skill ceiling. How do you explain that? Why be so radical and change a formula that has been and could be so successful, that players have been begging for a new iteration of for years? This is not the tired franchise, reinventing stage that Starcraft is going through here. It's the nostalgic recreation phase.
This is another portion of his argument, but I think you're mixing something up, here. The game might be objectively harder: you might autodie unless you can maintain 300 apm or something, but the real game 'difficulty' in a 1v1 doesn't lie in fighting the interface, its in outdoing your opponent. Since the difficulty of the game actually comes from the opponent you're playing, and not the interface itself, why is the interface's effect on difficulty itself (and not on feel) important? If you answer that the mechanical difficulty of the game equates to the game 'feel', then you essentially grant sirlin's 'selfish oldschool' argument.
Of course the interface has some influence on the feel of the game. Any time you change the interface, you yourself acknowledge that it changes the sorts of decisions that a player has to make when using it, since after all you yourself would rather decide "disengage my army" rather than be caught up with any details like whether to 1a2a3a or be upgrading your units at any moment. These decisions are part of what makes up the "feel", because they're strategic too. Which thing will give me the best advantage, disengaging my army at this very moment or focusing my attention on upgrading first? These are hard decisions that progamers mess up on all the time because Starcraft requires to you play smart. It's not mindless.
To dismiss such things as selfish is stupid. I don't care if Sirlin makes some game that caters to your kind of audience, that's great, that's his niche. But let me ask you something: if someone make an incredibly mechanical sequel out of a successful but incredibly nonmechanical game, do you think the nonmechanical players wouldn't come out of the woodwork screaming "What the crap did you do to our sequel?! We can't even play it right! You didn't even make it for us!" And they'd have every right to do so, because the company was engaging in false advertising after all. It was supposed to be a sequel that the fans of the previous game could enjoy. Would you see me complaining if they actually made it nonmechanical like they should have? No!
And if you start lecturing me about your examples of sequels that do change, do some critical thinking and see my point here. Yeah, sequels change, but not at the cost of the fan base, and when a sequel is completely different it's called a spin-off. Not a sequel.
So don't give me elitist bullcrap. I don't have any illusions about the role of mechanical play in any game, and if you would allow the players of the above hypothetical game to complain but not let me complain then you've got yourself an bigoted double standard. Otherwise, let's move along.
The argument which has already been presented against Sirlin's opinion is that newbies play a completely different game from those that the elitist players are playing, and thus can enjoy it in that respect.
You're misunderstanding someone else's statement. Specifically, they meant the metagame, or the player's conception of what is involved in winning the game. The game will always favor the player with the better conception of the metagame, because that allows them to win. However the players are still playing the same game. Worse players have a harder time enjoying the game when they're playing better players, because there can often be such a huge mental metagame difference that the worse player has no bloody clue where to start in order to not lose.
This is why game theory generally assumes that the players are rational.
Why does this change with current levels of interface interference as opposed with increased levels? Isn't any form of barrier to enjoying the 'true' version of the game detrimental to the game's community?
I already told you, because of what newbies want in regards to the game that they play. No newbie wants to play a game with manual mining or single building selection nowadays, even if it's Starcraft. But they wouldn't mind building workers in order to build other things like units and buildings, or selecting their whole army and then pushing "a" to attack move it to the opponent's base, that's the kind of thing they expect from Starcraft. Not to cater to their tastes at all would, again, be economic suicide, but not replacing those actions in some way changes the kinds of strategic decision making that higher end players are doing and thus changes the competitive game needlessly.
In effect: Satisfy the newbies by not bothering them with stuff they're bored of by now and satisfy the competitive players by keeping SC2 true to SC1's decision-making balance. Give the newbies new stuff, give the oldies a new flavor of the old stuff.
Sorry if this was very quote intensive, but there were a few statements that I want to look further into here, because I think they're somewhat recurring and that they've been used as unexamined assumptions throughout the conversation.
Sorry if this was very quote intensive, but I think you're full of unexamined assumptions. May as well have said, "Say more stuff! I'm going to prove you wrong hurhurhur!"
___
This will also be my last post here because arguing with L further is probably not going to produce any more understanding. But hey, it's here. Might as well post it.
edit: One last thing:
For instance, when I make a probe, am I really required to hotkey a nexus, select the nexus, select that I want to make a probe, then later return to the nexus and then given an order for the probe to mine? Mechanically I am. In terms of the decision I've made, by contrast, I already know I want a probe to be building before I make the first action.
Maybe ideally, yes. But the mechanical limitation means you have to CHOSE. Chose between whether building a probe, managing your army, or upgrading your buildings is the best possible strategy for you at the moment. It's a strategic decision that commonly causes pros to lose games when they slip up and aren't paying attention at the right spot at the right time, and it has as much of a right to be in the metagame as anything else. Subjective arguments, remember?
Put in another light: Say I have a vulture harass and my main army attacking. I cannot micro both perfectly. I have to choose between the two with my future interests at heart. Can I afford to risk losing the vultures early on in the harass to preserve my main army? Or are the orders for my main army more important atm because he is moving his lurkers up?
If you removed more of the UI limitations, that second (perhaps more exciting to you) strategic decision wouldn't be possible either. Or if it was, it's nature would be irrevokably changed because you would not be risking nearly as much to do one or the other.
|
On December 26 2009 04:02 L wrote:
Since the difficulty of the game actually comes from the opponent you're playing, and not the interface itself, why is the interface's effect on difficulty itself (and not on feel) important?
The real difficulty in Starcraft comes from facing the opponent, yes, but it is always within the restrictions of the interface. You cannot just seperate the two and say one half is the real game and one half is just the interface, because there's never a point at which the interface ceases to have an effect and the players are just competing within the core rules; in every game of Starcraft ever played the interface has a deep effect on each and every action. The so-called true game simply does not exist.
Sirlin's argument works for fighting games, but he can only make it because there are plenty of examples of matches between mechanically perfect players where their mastery of execution is just taken for granted, and the difficulty of that execution seems irrelevant because neither player makes any mistakes. The fact that no such SC matches exist(barring simple BO wins) means extending the argument is like making blanket assumptions about apples and oranges.
|
L... have you ever played Men of War??
trust me, you play that game and 5 seconds later you will come back here and apologize to all of us about saying that the Starcraft interface is a 'barrier'... dude 5 seconds in to the game and you will miss the Starcraft interface and hotkeying system.
Actually a lot of low level players have huge APM the problems is what they do with it. So the interface is not hindering their potential it is their knowledge and their lack of experience/practice. If you practice 12hours a day for a year I am sure you will reach Pro-Gamer level.
The cool part about it is that you have to consciously work on your problems, your proposal is that the UI must be modified to make the game 'better' but in my eyes if not changed correctly it will destroy the balance that we already have established from 11 years of playing that game and I think that would be disastrous.
|
L 'fighting the ui' is intuitive and rewarding. it is full of non-trivial decision making about how you use your time. there is no difference between these decisions and your magical 'player created interactions' and 'interactive elements'.
also you're a condescending dick. "Please stop confusing an instance of decision making with a mechanical requirement." the point is in a good game you don't have time for everything. doing something isnt a mechanical requirement, it is a decision on what to do. if you take away the mechanical requirements then you kill 95% of active thought in a game of starcraft and with it you kill all idividualism.
seriously, you have no idea what else to fill the game with. you have no idea how to make strategy more deep. you have no idea where to add these non-trivial decisions in that you want to destroy by making everything instant and effortless. you're just fantasizing. oh wait, more micro! no, i dont believe you when you say all your examples being micro doesnt mean anything.
you say its not true that you dont like macro and management, but your idea of ideal macro is thinking of what to make and its already done. your idea of ideal management is thinking of what to do and its already done. this isnt macro and management.
when we get to micro your ideal is suddenly actually clicking shit and doing it for yourself. amazing! a decision to drop a reaver and aim at some probes then run away is no different than the decision to squeeze in a round of production or set your backed up workers to mine. just because you pretend the former is somehow more interactive or skillchecked than the later doesnt make it so. "but your opponent might run his probes from your reaver!" - "but your opponent might not squeeze in that production round and your reinforcements will overpower him!"
|
L you are just wrong.
If you don't have mechanical requirements you get rid of the majority of decision making in any RTS.
I don't care how good an RTS you can think of strategically that doesn't have mechanical requirements, because if you add mechanical requirements it will require exponentially more decisions.
There hasn't even been any evidence that a game with an easy interface can succeed in being strategic, and you certainly haven't given any reasoning behind why it could.
|
Somewhere in the world there's a teenage kid who has never played Starcraft. But this kid will buy Starcraft 2 and become the next SlayerS_`BoxeR`. You are outdated and stuck in the past. They will be faster, smarter, and not inhibited by outdated thinking.
You will be replaced!
The older generation can sit in their rocking chairs and say the new generation has it so easy. They can reminisce about how back in their day they could only select 12 units at a time!
Don't worry its not a bad thing. Teach your kids to play they will be better then you could ever have dreamed of being.
|
On December 27 2009 02:51 ManiacTheZealot wrote:
Somewhere in the world there's a teenage kid who has never played Starcraft. But this kid will buy Starcraft 2 and become the next SlayerS_`BoxeR`. You are outdated and stuck in the past. They will be faster, smarter, and not inhibited by outdated thinking.
You will be replaced!
The older generation can sit in their rocking chairs and say the new generation has it so easy. They can reminisce about how back in their day they could only select 12 units at a time!
Don't worry its not a bad thing. Teach your kids to play they will be better then you could ever have dreamed of being.
dude do you even realize that if you take away the necessity to send the workers to mine the current pro-gamers are going to be WAY more good since you are taking away something that takes their attention? actually some of the mechanics are going to favor the current pro-gamers since it will make their life easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
