|
On December 26 2009 10:01 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2009 09:32 ucsdt wrote: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.
I did misunderstand what you meant by the chess with more than one move per turn statement. However, why would chess be less strategic with multiple moves per turn? As another poster said, multiple moves per turn simply opens up more end positions after each turn, which just makes the game different, if not more strategic, than regular chess.
As for the scouting, the chances of you guessing right the build your opponent makes is decidedly against your favor unless there are <=2 builds your opponent can make. Thus, it is almost always beneficial to scout, which is why we do it in starcraft..... Though, yes, the game would turn into rock paper scissors if scouting can always be denied. However, perfect execution does not guarantee that at all.
Even without perfect execution, hard counters still exist. "Build order losses" do exist after all. Last time i checked, 12 hatch is an auto loss vs 5 pool if your opponent is competent at all.
Although it is true that APM sinks do not directly get in the way of decision making, they do make decision making less relevant. Correct decision matters less if an APM sink gets in the way of executing that decision.
Your contention that 95% of all the decision-making in starcraft lies in how you allocate your time simply does not fit reality. Go ahead and look at the strategy section or liquipedia. How many threads are on how to allocate your time? I count none. The overall consensus on how to allocate your time has long been set, which is to macro as perfectly as possible while microing to the extent necessary in the matchup/build.
I have no problem with the fact that some people can do more actions with in a given period of time than other people. However, I do have a problem with that fact if those actions are mindless actions caused by archaic UI. APM sinks do get in the way of enjoying the strategic aspects of the game.
|
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. I grew up literally playing dune 2 on a sega genesis. I know my fair share about shitty UIs.
And to the repeated assertion that new players don't know what to do with their apm, I've taught quite a few players how to play a number of RTS games. The statement that they simply don't know what to do is true up until a certain point while they have no idea what the units and the object of the game is; this typically lasts a few hours to a few days. At this stage, players spend a lot of time staring at the screen because everything is new and they have no idea how any of the puzzle pieces interact.
After that point, the assertion simply isn't true. People are associating issues with dealing with the UI and blaming it on someone's capability of making a decision. There's an increased mental workload associated with slogging through a UI, much the same way there would be an increased mental workload with having a conversation if before every reply you had to play simon: the game of memory. As for being able to 'deal' with the UI with 12 hours a day worth of practice, again, you could do so for a harder interface too; the fact that you can adapt to a UI doesn't mean that the UI is properly designed or fulfilling its purpose.
(Speaking of simon, its a pretty baller game in terms of UI. You want to press 'red' you literally press 'red'. Done deal. no hoops to jump through)
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'. 1) Fighting the UI isn't intuitive, nor is it rewarding.
If counterstrike forced me to crouch, stand up, jump, roll my mouse wheel down then up precise distances, then told me to type in a random string between each bullet I fired, everyone would agree that the interface was bullshit and unintuitive. Obviously nothing is this bad, but the general principle applies to pretty much every non-essential interface barrier, which is why interfaces have been becoming cleaner, and game mechanics have been becoming smoother as the gaming industry matures. The interface is just that; an interface between you, a physical person, and some action within a game that you want to perform. The fact that not a single person here advocates starcraft D is important; According to your statement, people would LOVE the intuitive and rewarding exercise of wranging with a shit interface, yet no one in practice has said they would when given the option.
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. I don't see how its condescending to point out a flaw in someone's thinking. There's a clear difference between the speed of decision making and the volume of decision making in a game compared with the speed of fulfilling mechanical requirements and the volume of those mechanical requirements. If you confuse the two, this entire conversation makes no sense because at its core this is a conversation about the relative sizes and impacts of those two volumes.
On the topic of not having time for 'everything': that's perfectly true. Nor would you have time for everything in what I've proposed. The only difference is the relative volume of mechanical requirements and the volume of decision making. As a further precision; this isn't simply about the volume of these two groups, but their relative impact on the game outcome as well.
when we get to micro your ideal is suddenly actually clicking shit and doing it for yourself. amazing!
WHOA. Looks like I don't have an issue with the volume of physical requirement that the game has, but rather with the amount of it that's dedicated to dealing with the user interface instead of actually fighting my opponent! Couldn't be that I said that before repeatedly and specifically mentioned that my game would probably have a higher useful multitask limit because of it.
So what's the problem?
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. Oh I found it. The problem is because you haven't bothered reading my posts and think that reducing interface interference in the game equates to making things instant and effortless, despite the fact that I've specifically indicated that I'd prefer the inverse of that situation.
So we come to this:
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 Yes, there IS a difference, much like there's a difference between choosing to perform the counterstrike crouch wheel code shot and the 'click mouse 1' shot. Time as a currency is a very good analogy here; While you don't care where you're spending the time, you want to always be timepoor. I care where I'm spending the time AND want to be time poor. You, however, after becoming used to starcraft, can't fathom a game in which you aren't time poor without interface clunkiness soaking up all your precious time dollars. I've already mentioned a few.
This is why the 'time poverty' of starcraft was mentioned as a critical component in the 'feel' of the game, whereas the UI was not; SC2 already chopped out the most egregious problems.
So when this is said:
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. I kinda laugh; MBS, automine, unlimited selection (or not 12, at any rate) and smartcast are already in the game. They've already accepted the main sirlin/me proposals and threw them straight into the game as fundamental mechanics.
Where blizzard has issues is in trying to keep players time poor without simply clunking up the gameplay. This is why we had such a lovely time dreaming up macro mechanics. Clunking up the interface is akin to filling up on a loaf of bread; its filling, but it isn't particularly nutritious. Its a design cop-out, if you will.
If you don't have mechanical requirements you get rid of the majority of decision making in any RTS. No you don't, nor is it possible to have zero mechanical requirements. Even in the case of a perfect mind-game interface, one's mental dexterity would be the limiting factor on your ability to multitask.
There hasn't even been any evidence that a game with an easy interface can succeed in being strategic Oh, is that so? Go couldn't possibly have strategy in it, then, right? There are many games wherein the interface barrier is near nil and the strategic difficulty is off the charts, but you're being willfully blind.
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. This makes more sense as a cogent argument than most of the ones above, but I disagree that there are matches between mechanically perfect players to a certain point;
Even if you have nearly no mistakes in your execution, your execution normally is a reflection of what you're comfortable with taking on mechanically; players will generally tend away from things they cannot mechanically perform because a mistake might cost the game. Additionally, despite having full information, I've never actually seen a perfect game being played. What's more, in a game like thirdstrike, where you can literally react to everything if you're mechanically sound enough through parries and techs I've never seen top level play be a matter of parrying everything.
Many fighting game concepts specifically rely on the mechanical flaws that players have; The high low game, crossups, tick throws, footsies, etc all play upon minor mistakes. That might be so, but its one thing to state there's a mechanical requirement, and another to state the magnitude at which it has to be. If every hit in SF4 had to be input in a one frame link from the previous one in every combo, the game would still be playable, but would examine the effect of such a game on the community if 99% of players can't land their normal bnb anymore.
There's a bit more I wanted to comment on, but most of it has already been dealt with. If people think their statement really is a haymaker, feel free to pm me exactly what you want me to comment on because the sheer volume of repeated arguments makes it impossible to go over everything.
|
L, what do you think about SC1 with and without the mechanical barriers in relation to Mixed Martial Arts competitions and The UFC2009 Undisputed video game? In this case let's take the game as directly translating the fighting mindgame skills required of real life. So we have this video game where fighters can simulate their skills through. If you haven't played the game, let me tell you that the controls are simple and fluid. You can roundhouse someone with the touch of a button, regardless of whether or not you can do this in real life. Let's say it's the exact same thing as the sport MMA but without needing the running, grappling classes, striking classes, defense drills, sparring, and weightlifting that shy beginners away.
Now it looks like Sirlin would tear this sport apart based on how much work there is that keeps the lower levels from experiencing the same game that the professionals do. My question to you is this:
Why is MMA the fastest growing sport in this country? Surely all that I mentioned above, along with the physical pain involved overall, would be a strong deterrent to getting people into the competitive scene. And by that matter, why was SC such a popular e-sport in Korea? Tough interface and all. Would you seriously have more respect for a master of the UFC2009 game than someone like Fedor or A. Silva? I think anyone who would agree to that would be immensely retarded. I feel like the above is an accurate analogy to SC1 pros and whoever the pros of SC2 will be. There simply is no comparison. The SC2 pros are only playing a portion of the game, afterall.
|
On December 27 2009 05:58 ucsdt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2009 10:01 Kiarip wrote:On December 26 2009 09:32 ucsdt wrote: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. I did misunderstand what you meant by the chess with more than one move per turn statement. However, why would chess be less strategic with multiple moves per turn? As another poster said, multiple moves per turn simply opens up more end positions after each turn, which just makes the game different, if not more strategic, than regular chess.
No, because just about each position you can arrive at by being able to move more than one piece per turn, can also be arrived at by moving one piece per turn, except for there would be way more decision making involved along the way, as you have to prioritize the development of different pieces, and etc (a bunch of other things I've previously mentioned.) So basically by being able to move more than one piece per turn you cut out a large portion of the game and what makes it strategic.
As for the scouting, the chances of you guessing right the build your opponent makes is decidedly against your favor unless there are <=2 builds your opponent can make. Thus, it is almost always beneficial to scout, which is why we do it in starcraft..... Though, yes, the game would turn into rock paper scissors if scouting can always be denied. However, perfect execution does not guarantee that at all.
Even without perfect execution, hard counters still exist. "Build order losses" do exist after all. Last time i checked, 12 hatch is an auto loss vs 5 pool if your opponent is competent at all.
Well yes, ZvZ has some BO counters, because sending out a drone to scout early enough to avoid the BO loss puts you way behind economically.
With perfect mechanics there will be hard counters, but not only that. Imagine if anything that's considered mechanics right now is done perfectly automatically for you. Things that don't necessarily result in a BO loss right now are much more likely to, and when they do they will be 100% BO losses, because you won't be able to micro your way out of them and etc.
Although it is true that APM sinks do not directly get in the way of decision making, they do make decision making less relevant. Correct decision matters less if an APM sink gets in the way of executing that decision.
I disagree. Correct decisions count even more when you can't afford to do everything perfectly, because that's when you really need to decide what is the most important thing at the given moment.
Your contention that 95% of all the decision-making in starcraft lies in how you allocate your time simply does not fit reality. Go ahead and look at the strategy section or liquipedia. How many threads are on how to allocate your time? I count none. The overall consensus on how to allocate your time has long been set, which is to macro as perfectly as possible while microing to the extent necessary in the matchup/build.
That's because there's way more to skill than having a strategy, and having a lot of APM. That's why there's D players with 250 APM and B players with 120.
There's no threads in liquipedia about decision-making, because first of all no one really knows how to properly train it, and if someone does it's a well kept secret (and even if someone thinks they know they probably only have a piece of the truth and not the whole thing.) Also, because Liquipedia is a about game strategy. Not all decision making is strategy.
The "overall consensus," is indeed that macro is very important, but first of all not everyone is able to keep to this "overall consensus" (not because they're not fast enough, but because they always find themselves wanting to do different things which may seem more important to them at the moment, and they very well may be more important.) Also, that's a pretty vague way to say something "micro to the extent necessary in the matchup/build." As I said no one really knows just how much is ideally necessary (given that you can't do everything perfectly,) it's all on case by case basis, which is why it adds depth to the game. Also some people like to micro more in some match ups while less and the others, and some people are the other way around.
But now we're getting into styles, I don't really want to talk about them, because even though Dustin Browder thought that it was so important to "preserve the different styles," styles are really just crystallization and the simplification of the decision making that you have to do. It's kind of like a habbit that acts like a crutch in helping you make decisions as it skews your idea of what's really ideal.
The decision making that I'm talking about is the pure form of what happens when you can't do everything, but you have to do the best you can with what you've got. Sometimes it's more important to micro, sometimes it's more important to macro (both are pretty broad categories, so really all I mean is sometimes you need to do one thing first, and sometimes you need to do another thing first.) It's all on a case by case basis UNLIKE game strategy, and that's why there's strategic depth in the game.
I have no problem with the fact that some people can do more actions with in a given period of time than other people. However, I do have a problem with that fact if those actions are mindless actions caused by archaic UI. APM sinks do get in the way of enjoying the strategic aspects of the game.
What you're calling strategic aspects of the game is stuff that can be, and is written down on liquipedia. If it's written down already, there's not all that much to enjoy. If it wasn't for the mechanical requirements then you wouldn't be enjoying it for long, because the same exact thing would start happening every game really fast.
Another thing about the "strategy aspect," is that you can prepare your strategy way way ahead of the game, so you don't even have to make any decisions as you're playing (thus completely eliminating all strategic depth.) The decisions that involve mechanics, however, can't be as easily prepared, or "solved for all variations," I mean like you said you can have a basic rule that you follow, but it's going to be far from all-encompassing, and I bet different players would even interpret the rule differently.
|
Um, what happened to the thread title? >_>
|
I don't think every dick should count. Just those that have entered before me and if they were using protecting.
Unless she has been gang banged then that is a serious problem for me.
|
On December 27 2009 08:25 AlienAlias wrote:
Um, what happened to the thread title? >_>
what are you talking about? on my brand-new monitor i see 'click' not 'dick'. maybe you should replace your monitor.
+ Show Spoiler +EDIT: aww, they changed it back =(
also wtf @ the pages of essay-long posts O.o
|
It shouldn't, but every sperm is sacred.
|
On December 27 2009 08:29 Ancestral wrote:
It shouldn't, but every sperm is sacred.
I have drowned so many in toliets and showers that I'm surely going to hell.
Or growing an army of sewer babies that will vote for me come election time!
|
^ why would anyone vote for you if you flushed them down the toilet
more like you're growing an army of sewer babies that will be out to get you come election time
=o
make a run for it before its too late
|
Ahahaha I read this as every dick counts..
...and I clicked on it...
|
On December 27 2009 06:03 L wrote:Show nested quote +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'. 1) Fighting the UI isn't intuitive, nor is it rewarding. If counterstrike forced me to crouch, stand up, jump, roll my mouse wheel down then up precise distances, then told me to type in a random string between each bullet I fired, everyone would agree that the interface was bullshit and unintuitive. The fact that not a single person here advocates starcraft D is important; According to your statement, people would LOVE the intuitive and rewarding exercise of wranging with a shit interface
everything in starcraft works the same. you select the unit or building you want to give a command to. you give a command to that unit or building. that is intuitive. your CS example is random junk. you have ignored, again, that people want a balance between mechanics and strategy. starcraft D is as rubbish as starcraft lite, stop bringing it up. "you like mechanics so you would like 8x the mechanics and if you dont you dont like mechanics!" is not a valid arguement.
On December 27 2009 06:03 L wrote:Show nested quote +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. I don't see how its condescending to point out a flaw in someone's thinking. There's a clear difference between the speed of decision making and the volume of decision making in a game compared with the speed of fulfilling mechanical requirements and the volume of those mechanical requirements. If you confuse the two, this entire conversation makes no sense because at its core this is a conversation about the relative sizes and impacts of those two volumes.
because i have a different opinion on what a mechanical action means does not mean i do not understand and for you to imply me not agreeing with you means i dont understand makes you condescending. there is not a clear difference between the speed/volume of decision making and the speed/volume of mechanics. mechanics involves decision making when there is sufficient volume, mechanics would only become mindless in your ideal sc2.
On December 27 2009 06:03 L wrote:Show nested quote +when we get to micro your ideal is suddenly actually clicking shit and doing it for yourself. amazing! WHOA. Looks like I don't have an issue with the volume of physical requirement that the game has, but rather with the amount of it that's dedicated to dealing with the user interface instead of actually fighting my opponent! Couldn't be that I said that before repeatedly and specifically mentioned that my game would probably have a higher useful multitask limit because of it. So what's the problem?
that you are only interested in micro and have no interest in macro and management which i stated before and you denied. oh im still waiting for non-micro examples of how you're going to replace all the decision making you're ripping out of the game.
On December 27 2009 06:03 L wrote:Show nested quote +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. Oh I found it. The problem is because you haven't bothered reading my posts and think that reducing interface interference in the game equates to making things instant and effortless, despite the fact that I've specifically indicated that I'd prefer the inverse of that situation.
yes, you've indicated it several times. at no point have you indicated how it is even possible or given examples of how to achieve it. what your posts do indicate is that yes, you actually do want to make macro and management effortless (you have stated you want to be able to do things as fast as you can think and additionally that you believe you can think much faster than you can navigate the current ui) and introduce a million new micro mechanics to make up for it. this is not acceptable.
On December 27 2009 06:03 L wrote:So we come to this: Show nested quote +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 Yes, there IS a difference, much like there's a difference between choosing to perform the counterstrike crouch wheel code shot and the 'click mouse 1' shot. Time as a currency is a very good analogy here; While you don't care where you're spending the time, you want to always be timepoor. I care where I'm spending the time AND want to be time poor. You, however, after becoming used to starcraft, can't fathom a game in which you aren't time poor without interface clunkiness soaking up all your precious time dollars. I've already mentioned a few.
actually you're incorrect. we DO care. we want people spending time away from battle. i for one love the concept of getting away from your units as much as you dare. as to that quote, there is NO DIFFERENCE. you understand that micro and counter-micro is interactive because its staring you in the face. you wholly don't understand macro is interactive because you think it begins and ends where you mash some keys. macro is interactive not in the physical input but in the decision of when you squeeze in the cycles and what is your opponent doing at that time. its an invisible tug of war for economic, production and unit supperiority. the difference in interactivity with your opponent between micro and macro exists only in your mind. we believe a balance of where you spend your time is better than spending 95%+ of your time on micro. your cs example continues to be sensationalist rubbish. your mentioned examples again can be summed up as "more micro!". hey look, i can do it too; you can't fathom people enjoying a game which tests skills other than unit strategy and micro.
On December 27 2009 06:03 L wrote:they already did all this to sc2, that means i'm right!
you kidding?
|
No you don't, nor is it possible to have zero mechanical requirements. Even in the case of a perfect mind-game interface, one's mental dexterity would be the limiting factor on your ability to multitask.
umm. yes you do. If you get rid of mechanical requirements you get rid of all decision making that counts.
You want to keep micro... but guess what. micro is PURELY mechanical. It's absolutely no different than macro. Micro is just a set of techniques you use to maximize your units' capabilities. You don't make absolutely ANY real decisions about micromanagement except for "should I be micro'ing right now, or doing something else?" And that decision only occurs when you have OTHER mechanical things to attend to like macro.
Hence my point without mechanics you're removing pretty much all of decision making, because the vast majority of decision making in Starcraft, and in any RTS is about the allocation of one's mechanical ability.
Oh, is that so? Go couldn't possibly have strategy in it, then, right? There are many games wherein the interface barrier is near nil and the strategic difficulty is off the charts, but you're being willfully blind.
You're dumb. The interface in go is completely different than it is in an RTS, however in both games an interface is just a set of rules. In go the fact that you can only place pieces in such a way that you capture your opponents' pieces is easily the equivalent of Mechanical Requirements in Starcraft. Without that rule the game would be retarded, and not strategic at all.
How about you name an RTS that has low mechanical requirements that was actually good?
WC3? No macro, but tons of micro, there's still quite a bit of mechanical requirement there, but the game isn't that good and is pretty flawed, because it requires no multitask, and hence there's very little decision making.
Strategically it is stagnant and dead.
WC2: no diversity, but was a great game, had huge mechanical requirements, probably too much.
RA1: was never played competitively.
RA2: bad game, tank spam.
Generals/ZH: actually had macro, but everything in that game was so broken that each match up was pretty much a combination of several gimmicks, had some multi-screen micro, but once again it was never really that good, a competitive player-base of actually rather good gamers kept it alive.
All other EA games have been absolutely terrible strategically. BFME series was just bad with its squads.
games like DoW/CoH are extremely shallow strategically but probably mostly due to the resource system.
In conclusion, there has never been a game where anyone actually said something like:
"O wow, you don't need to be fast at all for this game, but even at the highest level of play there's so many different possibilities, it's really strategic."
What makes you think it's even possible?
they already did all this to sc2, that means i'm right!
No it just means they dun understand what they're doing... what a surprise right?
|
rofl I read this title as 'every dick counts'
|
On December 27 2009 07:58 NatsuTerran wrote:
Why is MMA the fastest growing sport in this country?
MMA is the fastest growing sport in the country because it has a large entertainment value for spectators, specifically the demographic of men ages 16-25, which it has due to it's fast-paced and violent tendencies. I think that it would be hard to argue that the sport is growing because more people are participating in it and therefore more people are watching it, rather than the other way around (such as is the case). Therefore this fact has nothing to due with the argument at hand unless you are arguing for more physical violence among Starcraft 2 players so that it will grow faster as an esport.
|
L, what do you think about SC1 with and without the mechanical barriers in relation to Mixed Martial Arts competitions and The UFC2009 Undisputed video game? I don't practice MMA, nor have I played the game so I can't really answer your question; There's way too many important factors that I simply can't comment on. If your argument is, however, that the physical requirement is analogous, and that it is also the reason for the success of both SC and MMA, I will have to disagree with you. SC was popular and a spectator sport far before the macro envelope was pushed; As I argued when we had the threads commenting on the removal of the lan option, starcraft's appeal was originally grown out of its ability to be a fun social lan game; sponsorship and pushing the limits of play followed that, not preceeded it.
your CS example is random junk. Yet selecting only 12 units at a time isn't? Having rallies to minerals not trigger mining isn't? That's the exact point.
Either way, the example was brought to dispute the example that wrestling with interfaces is intrinsically rewarding and intuitive. It isn't as was shown; it is the lack of an interface and the direct transmittance of someone's choice into a game effect which makes the single click interface obviously preferable.
starcraft D is as rubbish as starcraft lite, stop bringing it up. "you like mechanics so you would like 8x the mechanics and if you dont you dont like mechanics!" is not a valid arguement. Its a plenty valid argument when it counters an unconditional statement that physical requirements add to the game; clearly if the example is made that there's situations in which they don't, IE starcraft D, then the original argument needs to be revised. Only tofu's really bothered to do that.
that you are only interested in micro and have no interest in macro and management which i stated before and you denied. oh im still waiting for non-micro examples of how you're going to replace all the decision making you're ripping out of the game. If I denied it, why do you claim that its the case, once again without actually pointing to areas of what I've written? I've already stated why I used a micro example; its visual in nature. If I could redesign macro, there's a number of things I could do; use destructible doodads in the base to open up areas for building, spread out and delocalize minerals from lines into patches with various different rates so that units like the MULE could be prioritized to . There are SO many possible mechanics that could be added to give people more to do on the economy and production side of the game; the difficult part becomes how do you put in the least amount of complexity and get out the most possible user involvement. This question is so difficult that blizzard has you, the community, brainstorming macro mechanics for them, yet they're doing it. But the macro mechanics that they have only really scratch the surface; what if you could gain bonuses if you have certain buildings being fed by multiple pylons? What if zerg creep could be spread manually and used to give units bonuses (oh wait)? What if terrans could sacrifice units with a certain amount of kills to give factories or barracks a 'veteran teacher' bonus to their production speed. There's so many possibilities here; how to make them viable and rewarding is the tough part.
yes, you've indicated it several times. at no point have you indicated how it is even possible or given examples of how to achieve it. what your posts do indicate is that yes, you actually do want to make macro and management effortless No, what my posts indicate is that I want to make macro and management have far more decision based qualities associated with them and have the difficulty and mechanical requirements stem from that. If you're so intent on reading in something which isn't there, you might as well not bother selectively quoting me; just make stuff up and attribute it to me.
Like here:
actually you're incorrect. we DO care. we want people spending time away from battle. i for one love the concept of getting away from your units as much as you dare. as to that quote, there is NO DIFFERENCE. You don't really present an argument as to why there isn't a difference apart from simply stating that there is no difference. Instead you simply attribute my statement that there IS a difference to my attempt to assassinate macro, and then proceed to ignore it. I haven't argued against the time requirement that macro requires; I've argued against the time requirement that macro requires which is brought on by a poor interface. I don't even want the amount of time requirement to drop; I want the game content to grow in step with the interface being streamlined.
you kidding? Nope.
If you get rid of mechanical requirements you get rid of all decision making that counts. Nope. already proven false.
You want to keep micro... but guess what. micro is PURELY mechanical. Yep, sure is. Have I been against mechanical requirements, or against poor interfaces creating unneeded mechanical requirements?
You don't make absolutely ANY real decisions about micromanagement except for "should I be micro'ing right now, or doing something else? Yeah, that's horrendously false. You should probably play a number of micro based games; there's a lot more decision making than 'should I micro' in most games. The reaver example I mentioned alone is enough to demonstrate. If your opponent force fired the maynard path, your best option would be to manually dodge with your probes. If your opponent force fired the most likely dodge spot, your best option would be to do nothing. If your opponent fired the scarab normally, dodging might salvage an otherwise dud scarab. So which do you choose? Well, that would depend on what you anticipate your opponent to do and the likelihood of each of his choices, and thus the decision is interactive.
You're dumb. Thanks bro.
The interface in go is completely different than it is in an RTS, however in both games an interface is just a set of rules. But you didn't specify an RTS; you simply stated that there can be no strategy without a mechanical requirement. I proved you wrong. If you're wrong with the general statement, then you need to prove that RTS games are somehow different, so you try with a case study, but you make a fundamental error:
You attempt to state that the goal is to find a strategic, mechanically friendly RTS game. First off, just how mechanically friendly do you need to be? If the threshold is 'easier than SC1', then SC2 fits the bill. If the threshold is 'y'all can basically macro everything and redesign your own UI', then supreme commander works. Total annihilation similarly fits the bill, but its far older. If you want to go the middle route, there are still a number of games that work; Tiberian sun was played quite competitively for a long time until the servers were shut down, for instance. Universe at war was completely stillbirthed because they wanted to use games for windows live and charged a fee for proper matchmaking, but its value as a game had plenty of really fun strategic options available which were relatively easy to get along with. Even the most mechanically demanding aspect of the game, sucking shit up with hierarchy walkers was more interactive than a unit selection limit, because it forced you to react and choose different paths for your resource collectors all on the fly.
I would also suggest you try out Rise of Legends; the amount of decision making and the interactivity of the micro is off the charts.
Either way, my suggestions mean nothing in your framework: you use the term 'good' RTS, which lets you essentially badmouth every RTS that don't fit your argument. That's pretty much exactly what you move to do, while displaying quite a bit of ignorance about a number of the games along the way.
What's more, a lot of the games you mention simply serve to demonstrate my point further; Is WC3 a better game because of its unit selection limit, or was the game simply poorly designed? Would WC3 have changed its character because of 'how easy' its interface was, or was it the gameplay mechanics themselves that led to the 'flaws'? Would WC3 have been a better game if the interface only allowed you to select 4 units at a time? Or would WC3 have been a better game if it gave you more exciting and interesting ways of interacting with your opponent?
No it just means they dun understand what they're doing Obviously.
|
looks like every dick counts on screen, or many im just really drunk ROFL
|
First, briefly:
L, you are kicking ass. I hope you keep going as necessary, even though theatrics isn't helping the persuasion.
Onward:
Kiarip, I'm going to single you out because you are a convenient package of wrong. Sorry, it's not personal. If I seem combative it's because I can't address the subject matter more diplomatically, I'm not trying to be a jerk.
Your arguments are going backwards from the point you're making to why you're right. I can't believe you are trying to say Go is not strategic. The interface is placing stones with your fingers. The rules are "you can place one stone per turn". Those are completely separate. However, I see why you want to conflate them in your head. You see the time management aspect of starcraft as part of its strategy, and you see the strategy of a game as born from its rules. So a "rule" of starcraft is "you must manage your time between micro and macro, etc". I understand that thought, but you're twisting things into a shape that supports your belief about the sanctity of starcraft. Time management while interfacing is an aspect of the meta strategy of playing starcraft. It has nothing to do with the the interaction of the abstract game elements, which, for instance, would be things like "a marine--range, speed, damage, rate of fire, hp, armor" or "a mineral pile with X minerals" or "the energy count of that comsat station". The interplay of the abstract game elements creates the primary strategy of the game. This is the strategy in real-time strategy. Time management is not illegitimate, obviously, but it is outside the operation of the game, but not the playing of the game. Your assertions about strategic depth are wild caroms stemming from this kind of confusion. On this topic, the strategy in games depends on their rules, and many deep games have simple rules. Many simple games are not deep, like TicTacToe. Often, complex rules with many choices make for deep games, but as a general principle of design, heaping on complexity to add depth is inferior to depth from simplicity, which is often described as elegance. Games as systems often have very complex "behavior" based on an easy to grasp and often very limited set of rules of interaction. In analogy, consider the mandelbrot set, whose border is an infinitely variegated filigree of loops and branches. [pic]. This complex structure is defined by a very simple equation: z^2 + c. For another example of complex behavior based on simple rules, see Game_of_Life. What I'm trying to say is that your entire idea of strategic depth is flawed, and in this discussion you rely on time management as the mother of decision making. If that's your thing... cool... I guess. I find that pretty much not fun at all. Allow me to make an analogy. This is how I see the overly tedious mechanical tasks of macro. Imagine you were going to play a game called "hedge swashbuckle". It works like this. You and one opponent wake up from sleep inside a labyrinth. You each have a sword. When you eventually run into each other, you swordfight, and whoever lives wins. However, you must absolutely focus on your sword arm or else it goes completely limp. But, the same is true for your lungs; you must focus completely in order to draw each breath. So, you can either wield your sword or breathe, but not both. Playing a game of starcraft is like wandering through the maze, wondering if the other swordsman is just around the corner. Should you pause here and risk being caught off-guard with your defense down, in order to take a breath, or in one or two more steps? Should you take shallow breaths quickly and often, or long, sustaining breaths? However fun hedge swashbuckle might be, it is definitely LESS FUN if you have to worry about when to breathe. Imagine playing a game of basketball like this! Of course, if there were not normal basketball, it would be preferable to have at least a version with the weird breathing thing. In this case some people would go to the trouble of learning to play it with skill, and it'd be more fun than playing hop skotch, or buttons. But if you had the choice to play normal basketball, why wouldn't you just do that? You're arguing that the only true way is weird breathing basketball.
Frankly, you're just wrong to call on-the-fly time management strategy. You might apply a strategy to the task of managing your clicking business within the interface, in the hope of making it more efficient and decreasing instances of units engaging while not under your watch. It does add a lot of decisions which affect the outcome of the game, but those decisions are at worst like picking black or red in roulette, and at best low-information judgement calls. They are not strategic like designing a counter to the 5hatch hydra-bust plan (how many cannons do i need to build?), because you have no way to imagine beforehand whether one way or the other is better, you can only learn from the outcome of your choices.
Despite this, you have a valid point in that the freshest aspect of the game is this continuous "attention gambling", wherein higher and more focused APM is like having more chips to spread around, yet you still need to place your bets. But it's not like starcraft was designed this way intentionally. Nobody thought "ten years hence, there should be a reward for mechanical ability inherent in the playing of the game, once the primary strategy features have been figured out". And the existence of liquipedia doesn't mean there is no new strategy to be found. The dynamics of the racial and economic balance have been outlined quite well, but in the details of timing and battle tactics there are ever more ways to gain an advantage. Can the space of new strategies to dream up and employ be exhausted? Probably eventually, yes. And we've come pretty far since the game was designed. (Yes--it is a construct, an artifice, not some ageless entity with a true form projecting from the ether.) But the ability to maximize the engine of economic development while applying the power of your military to its fullest extent--that task, of multitask and macro betwixt micro--is lower hanging fruit for most of us compared to developing new strategies. This is compounded by a world of replays and VODs where you can watch the presumably "optimal" strategies employed by the best in the game. Of course you should spend your time learning to execute them properly, not thinking up new ones.
Tofu brings up a valid point about the "feel" of the game, in that altering that is a betrayal of the spirit of the experience. I completely sympathize with this. However, it's no reason to hold a new game back from clear improvements. The world changes. There are people who enact renaissance fairs, and I sympathize with that, but the majority of us don't advocate regressing back to that, even though jousting is fucking awesome. If you want to argue that the changes in sc2 deplete strategic depth due to time management, that's wrong as I've explained. Plus, it's an aspect of the game that many consider obsolete, even as we cherish it.
To return to Sirlin, his viewpoint is based on putting the game elements in the forefront, not the way you access the game elements. This is perhaps biased, coming from a design perspective, focusing on the part of the game you make. In the play experience, there are always meta game elements. Sometimes these turn out to be fun, like getting your Twister opponents drunk. Sometimes, they aren't, but they arise in the pursuit of superior play, and since winning is fun, they pick up that luster. And I sincerely empathize with the phenomenon, and its ramifications. But there is a better way, and it involves leaving things behind.
edit = typo fix
|
They didn't put unlimited unit selection in SC:BW for a reason....I think the same should be true of SC2.
|
This thread really got me worried for a moment there...
That's how it displays for me on the sidebar:
Edit: At the post above.
They didn't put in unlimited unit/building selection because the engine didn't allow for such things back in the days. If they could, they most likely would do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/8366/53305066.jpg)
