On May 17 2014 05:06 zlefin wrote: It's always hard to find out about the bulk casual users; since people like that aren't the people that post on forums much. Would people be interested in a project to make a casual mod version of sc2?
What do you mean by "casual" mod?
A mod intended for more casual, lower stress play; it's aim would be to be something that those of a more casual mindset would enjoy playing, while still being similar to normal sc2. It would likely involve considerably less clicking; and simplifying interfaces for ease of use and management; as well as many units tweaked for different gameplay patterns (kinda like the differences between dota and lol).
When you said "casual mindset... while still being similar to normal sc2... less clicking" I immediately thought of playing team games vs. AI's while using the "simple command card"
As far as units being tweaked, I don't know what to say about that (never played dota)
Are you imaging something like... auto-building units? Auto army fighting (no micro)?
On May 17 2014 05:06 zlefin wrote: It's always hard to find out about the bulk casual users; since people like that aren't the people that post on forums much. Would people be interested in a project to make a casual mod version of sc2?
What do you mean by "casual" mod?
A mod intended for more casual, lower stress play; it's aim would be to be something that those of a more casual mindset would enjoy playing, while still being similar to normal sc2. It would likely involve considerably less clicking; and simplifying interfaces for ease of use and management; as well as many units tweaked for different gameplay patterns (kinda like the differences between dota and lol).
When you said "casual mindset... while still being similar to normal sc2... less clicking" I immediately thought of playing team games vs. AI's while using the "simple command card"
As far as units being tweaked, I don't know what to say about that (never played dota)
Are you imaging something like... auto-building units? Auto army fighting (no micro)?
I imagine C&C minus super weapons.
Multiple production buildings are not needed. Buildings all built side by side of each other. Unit counters are lopsided. Tech is linear, T3 > T2 > T1. Game speed is slow enough to give players a chance to "micro" without needing to be fast. Resource gathering is near automated. Etc...
pretty... sweeping statement you have there. You really think mobas have a lack of strategic depth?
Item based Moba's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough gold to get enough items to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened
RTS's do lack strategic depth, it becomes a race of "Who can get enough money to get enough units to do more damage faster".
Dota for sure isn't as simple as that, you've got drafts, game plans vs different compositions, builds that counter other builds better, keeping track of your opponents setups.
Just like the common silly myth about SC style rts being about who can get the most dudes out the quickest isn't true.
edit: god damnit magpie what a theif
I always think back to Go.
If a game where you place a non-moving black/white piece on the board can have strategic depth, then surely any real time game will have strategic depth.
pretty... sweeping statement you have there. You really think mobas have a lack of strategic depth?
Item based Moba's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough gold to get enough items to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened
RTS's do lack strategic depth, it becomes a race of "Who can get enough money to get enough units to do more damage faster".
Dota for sure isn't as simple as that, you've got drafts, game plans vs different compositions, builds that counter other builds better, keeping track of your opponents setups.
Just like the common silly myth about SC style rts being about who can get the most dudes out the quickest isn't true.
edit: god damnit magpie what a theif
I always think back to Go.
If a game where you place a non-moving black/white piece on the board can have strategic depth, then surely any real time game will have strategic depth.
A strategy is to punish a greedy double-expand with a solid timing push (just to set an example). Or is that tactic?
pretty... sweeping statement you have there. You really think mobas have a lack of strategic depth?
Item based Moba's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough gold to get enough items to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened
RTS's do lack strategic depth, it becomes a race of "Who can get enough money to get enough units to do more damage faster".
Dota for sure isn't as simple as that, you've got drafts, game plans vs different compositions, builds that counter other builds better, keeping track of your opponents setups.
Just like the common silly myth about SC style rts being about who can get the most dudes out the quickest isn't true.
edit: god damnit magpie what a theif
I always think back to Go.
If a game where you place a non-moving black/white piece on the board can have strategic depth, then surely any real time game will have strategic depth.
Oh go. A minuscule set of rules, some places to put down pieces and you've got a strategic masterpeice.
I've been experimenting with mods that are relatively simple, easy to learn and play but should have incredibly high strategic ceilings. But of course, people really need the shiny diversity most rts's bring to the table.
pretty... sweeping statement you have there. You really think mobas have a lack of strategic depth?
Item based Moba's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough gold to get enough items to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened
RTS's do lack strategic depth, it becomes a race of "Who can get enough money to get enough units to do more damage faster".
Dota for sure isn't as simple as that, you've got drafts, game plans vs different compositions, builds that counter other builds better, keeping track of your opponents setups.
Just like the common silly myth about SC style rts being about who can get the most dudes out the quickest isn't true.
edit: god damnit magpie what a theif
I always think back to Go.
If a game where you place a non-moving black/white piece on the board can have strategic depth, then surely any real time game will have strategic depth.
A strategy is to punish a greedy double-expand with a solid timing push (just to set an example). Or is that tactic?
Strategy. It has far more to do with logistics and planning than in-battle maneuvers.
On May 17 2014 07:36 aZealot wrote: I'm not sure about arguments for RTS games to require less clicking. Personally, I like the the repetitive cyclic clicking.
It's quite soothing.
I don't think the problem is of the amount of clicking, but of the distances the "click zones" are in.
In most games (fighting, shooting, MOBA, etc...) the click zones are inherently character focused wherein there is a point of reference where you maintain a focus to in regards to clicking/button press.
In a fighting game, for instance, you need fast reflexes, high apm, and the ability to string button combinations fast and immediately. However, you're only attempting to affect the immediate area of your screen with a singular focus.
Going infinite with Ironman in any of the VS games requires much more complex micro than marine splits and and kiting. However, the difficulty with splitting and kiting is not that those things are themselves difficult to do, but you need to be doing them in parallel with defending enemy harass, executing your own harass, and maintaining base production. All those things happening in 3-5 different parts of the map all at once. Most players (especially lowbies like myself) zone out and get stuck only "focusing" on 2-3 of those parts instead of all of it.
Some bronzie will feel they lost to Protoss despite their marine micro when they forgot to produce units for 15 seconds. A silver player feels his macro was immaculate and zerg is OP without realizing that his drops only hit extractors while his main army never splits far enough apart or splits too far apart. And so on and so forth. Its not really the speed and dexterity that is the problem, its that people can't just memorize a way to "do it" like they can a lot of other games.
I would say Dance Dance Revolution is much more impressive both dexterity wise and APM wise than any RTS. Its physically hard, takes insane amounts of coordination, and is far easier for viewers to Grok than an RTS. But 400apm is not really what makes an RTS impressive, nor is it pure strategy.
People are not bothered by the hand speed requirements, people are bothered that they can't just pour that APM into just what's in front of them.
On May 17 2014 07:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: I would say Dance Dance Revolution is much more impressive both dexterity wise and APM wise than any RTS. Its physically hard, takes insane amounts of coordination, and is far easier for viewers to Grok than an RTS. But 400apm is not really what makes an RTS impressive, nor is it pure strategy.
Randomly made me think. As a piano player of 20+ years, my experience with SC2 is that playing it well requires as much or more finger action than a lot of solo piano music (jazz) I play. Left (keyboard) hand at least
First time I noticed this was playing elite AI with zerg, using ling+mutas. I remember thinking... wow I actually have to move my hands this fast to keep up with this? It's just a video game!
On May 17 2014 07:36 aZealot wrote: I'm not sure about arguments for RTS games to require less clicking. Personally, I like the the repetitive cyclic clicking.
It's quite soothing.
I don't think the problem is of the amount of clicking, but of the distances the "click zones" are in.
In most games (fighting, shooting, MOBA, etc...) the click zones are inherently character focused wherein there is a point of reference where you maintain a focus to in regards to clicking/button press.
In a fighting game, for instance, you need fast reflexes, high apm, and the ability to string button combinations fast and immediately. However, you're only attempting to affect the immediate area of your screen with a singular focus.
Going infinite with Ironman in any of the VS games requires much more complex micro than marine splits and and kiting. However, the difficulty with splitting and kiting is not that those things are themselves difficult to do, but you need to be doing them in parallel with defending enemy harass, executing your own harass, and maintaining base production. All those things happening in 3-5 different parts of the map all at once. Most players (especially lowbies like myself) zone out and get stuck only "focusing" on 2-3 of those parts instead of all of it.
Some bronzie will feel they lost to Protoss despite their marine micro when they forgot to produce units for 15 seconds. A silver player feels his macro was immaculate and zerg is OP without realizing that his drops only hit extractors while his main army never splits far enough apart or splits too far apart. And so on and so forth. Its not really the speed and dexterity that is the problem, its that people can't just memorize a way to "do it" like they can a lot of other games.
I would say Dance Dance Revolution is much more impressive both dexterity wise and APM wise than any RTS. Its physically hard, takes insane amounts of coordination, and is far easier for viewers to Grok than an RTS. But 400apm is not really what makes an RTS impressive, nor is it pure strategy.
People are not bothered by the hand speed requirements, people are bothered that they can't just pour that APM into just what's in front of them.
But, isn't that because a game like SC demands more things to memorize? Especially as the game goes on? At the start I just focus on my base and a couple of units, then on my base and more units, then a couple of bases and more units and so on. If the problem is the clicks required for base management + army management then that cuts to the heart of what an RTS game is (and the problem is a circular one). If the problem is the way or the system by which base management + army management is performed then that is an interesting way to conceive the problem. I hope I am reading you right here.
On May 17 2014 07:36 aZealot wrote: I'm not sure about arguments for RTS games to require less clicking. Personally, I like the the repetitive cyclic clicking.
It's quite soothing.
I don't think the problem is of the amount of clicking, but of the distances the "click zones" are in.
In most games (fighting, shooting, MOBA, etc...) the click zones are inherently character focused wherein there is a point of reference where you maintain a focus to in regards to clicking/button press.
In a fighting game, for instance, you need fast reflexes, high apm, and the ability to string button combinations fast and immediately. However, you're only attempting to affect the immediate area of your screen with a singular focus.
Going infinite with Ironman in any of the VS games requires much more complex micro than marine splits and and kiting. However, the difficulty with splitting and kiting is not that those things are themselves difficult to do, but you need to be doing them in parallel with defending enemy harass, executing your own harass, and maintaining base production. All those things happening in 3-5 different parts of the map all at once. Most players (especially lowbies like myself) zone out and get stuck only "focusing" on 2-3 of those parts instead of all of it.
Some bronzie will feel they lost to Protoss despite their marine micro when they forgot to produce units for 15 seconds. A silver player feels his macro was immaculate and zerg is OP without realizing that his drops only hit extractors while his main army never splits far enough apart or splits too far apart. And so on and so forth. Its not really the speed and dexterity that is the problem, its that people can't just memorize a way to "do it" like they can a lot of other games.
I would say Dance Dance Revolution is much more impressive both dexterity wise and APM wise than any RTS. Its physically hard, takes insane amounts of coordination, and is far easier for viewers to Grok than an RTS. But 400apm is not really what makes an RTS impressive, nor is it pure strategy.
People are not bothered by the hand speed requirements, people are bothered that they can't just pour that APM into just what's in front of them.
But, isn't that because a game like SC demands more things to memorize? Especially as the game goes on? At the start I just focus on my base and a couple of units, then on my base and more units, then a couple of bases and more units and so on. If the problem is the clicks required for base management + army management then that cuts to the heart of what an RTS game is (and the problem is a circular one). If the problem is the way or the system by which base management + army management is performed then that is an interesting way to conceive the problem. I hope I am reading you right here.
No no,
What I'm saying is... Hmm... How to put it...
Imagine Player A has 200 APM (arbitrary number)
Player A *wants* to spend 200 APM in the battle, but he instead spends 100 of those actions in the battle and 100 in his base.
Unless he does a drop, suddenly its 33/33/33, but what if he's getting dropped as well? Maybe the fight is important? so maybe he's going 40/15/15/15/10/5 as he microes the fight, scouted a hidden expo, sniped a drop, dropped an expo, maintained production, etc...
So in that 1 minute time span, the average player would like to spend 200 of his APM just microing units in the big fight. But in that 1 minute time span he instead is juggling 5 different things.
Now it doesn't matter if he has 200apm, 30apm, or 400apm. It goes against an average player's nature to want to split his APM.
On May 14 2014 17:47 SatedSC2 wrote: Can someone explain to me why it is a bad thing if RTS games remain a niche?
I think that if RTS games become more mainstream then they will lose what makes them entertaining for those people who currently play them. Yes, they can be horribly complex. Yes, they can be really difficult to get into. Yes, you will lose lots of games in a row before you start winning. And yes, it's even harder to master than it is to learn. But that's what the people who play RTS games are looking for, something complicated.
Because there hasn't been a good new RTS ever since Starcraft 2: WoL came out four years ago. It also doesn't help that Blizzard's main competitors (Redwood, Ensemble Studios, Relic etc.) either went bankrupt, got shut down or suffered financial difficulties.
I don't see the problem with that. I asked for someone to explain to me why it is a bad thing if RTS games remain a niche; all you've done is point out exactly why it is a niche.
In any case, the complexity of RTS games means that you only need a good RTS to come out very rarely. People were still coming up with new things towards the end of WoL, people will still be figuring out HotS by the time LotV rolls around, and then LotV will still carry us for a good few years after that. I'm really not that worried. I think SC2 is in a good place right now (Swarm Hosts aside) so s'all good IMO.
Exactly, I played BW casually for years. Played WC3 for much of my school life and have played SC2 since it came out.
There's not much I want in terms of MOBA elements and I'd argue that MOBAs aren't a big genre, there are big titles in LoL and DOTA, hell HoN has declined massively.
Accept you have a certain type of gamer who is into RTS and appeal to them, find a way to get more money out of them individually perhaps.
Here's my question about MOBAS.
Will people buy them at $60 a copy?
I've spent 2200 hours on Dota 2. I personally think it would be worth simply due to replayability and fun factor arising out of every game being different, even if heroes are the same. When I used to watch SC2, it bored me to death to watch the flavour of the month all-in by race X against race Y over and over again.
On May 17 2014 07:36 aZealot wrote: I'm not sure about arguments for RTS games to require less clicking. Personally, I like the the repetitive cyclic clicking.
It's quite soothing.
I don't think the problem is of the amount of clicking, but of the distances the "click zones" are in.
In most games (fighting, shooting, MOBA, etc...) the click zones are inherently character focused wherein there is a point of reference where you maintain a focus to in regards to clicking/button press.
In a fighting game, for instance, you need fast reflexes, high apm, and the ability to string button combinations fast and immediately. However, you're only attempting to affect the immediate area of your screen with a singular focus.
Going infinite with Ironman in any of the VS games requires much more complex micro than marine splits and and kiting. However, the difficulty with splitting and kiting is not that those things are themselves difficult to do, but you need to be doing them in parallel with defending enemy harass, executing your own harass, and maintaining base production. All those things happening in 3-5 different parts of the map all at once. Most players (especially lowbies like myself) zone out and get stuck only "focusing" on 2-3 of those parts instead of all of it.
Some bronzie will feel they lost to Protoss despite their marine micro when they forgot to produce units for 15 seconds. A silver player feels his macro was immaculate and zerg is OP without realizing that his drops only hit extractors while his main army never splits far enough apart or splits too far apart. And so on and so forth. Its not really the speed and dexterity that is the problem, its that people can't just memorize a way to "do it" like they can a lot of other games.
I would say Dance Dance Revolution is much more impressive both dexterity wise and APM wise than any RTS. Its physically hard, takes insane amounts of coordination, and is far easier for viewers to Grok than an RTS. But 400apm is not really what makes an RTS impressive, nor is it pure strategy.
People are not bothered by the hand speed requirements, people are bothered that they can't just pour that APM into just what's in front of them.
But, isn't that because a game like SC demands more things to memorize? Especially as the game goes on? At the start I just focus on my base and a couple of units, then on my base and more units, then a couple of bases and more units and so on. If the problem is the clicks required for base management + army management then that cuts to the heart of what an RTS game is (and the problem is a circular one). If the problem is the way or the system by which base management + army management is performed then that is an interesting way to conceive the problem. I hope I am reading you right here.
No no,
What I'm saying is... Hmm... How to put it...
Imagine Player A has 200 APM (arbitrary number)
Player A *wants* to spend 200 APM in the battle, but he instead spends 100 of those actions in the battle and 100 in his base.
Unless he does a drop, suddenly its 33/33/33, but what if he's getting dropped as well? Maybe the fight is important? so maybe he's going 40/15/15/15/10/5 as he microes the fight, scouted a hidden expo, sniped a drop, dropped an expo, maintained production, etc...
So in that 1 minute time span, the average player would like to spend 200 of his APM just microing units in the big fight. But in that 1 minute time span he instead is juggling 5 different things.
Now it doesn't matter if he has 200apm, 30apm, or 400apm. It goes against an average player's nature to want to split his APM.
Well, for that approach to be worthwhile, you'd have to assume that there is actually 200 effective APM to spend in the battle (or even more given the mechanical ability of the player). There might not be (game and context of the game dependent) leading to a lot of dead time. Second, splitting APM between points in the game and managing time is (IMO) an integral part of what makes a good RTS. Removing that element of decision and prioritising actions makes for a poorer game.
It's difficult to actually have cogent discussions about this, because the average player is a construct. I mean, I think of myself as an average game player (and a poor SC player), but so far I find MOBA games dull and boring and I find the difficulty of an RTS game like SC attractive (even if frustrating). If the argument is that overall game management in RTS games is too difficult for the average player, and to remove it entirely, then that's an argument I don't get and am not sympathetic to.
On May 17 2014 01:33 NihilisticGod wrote: Who cares about AAA? Do you look for that when deciding on a game? I certainly don't when I pick up a game. Sooo many indie devs these days, kickstarters etc. It doesnt have to be AAA to be a good game and simply by virtue of being AAA won't made it good either.
Fact is RTS are still getting made, can't dispute that. Fact is people still play RTS and come to places like this to discuss them. Which forces the conclusion that as a genre RTS is not dead or dying. Not as popular doesn't = death. Be realistic.
without AAA level graphics and a great multiplayer server the RTS genre will become increasingly marginalized. C&C servers to be shut down June 30.
nothing has really replaced the large scale big budget affairs that AoE and C&C games were.
What is the point in quoting someone then offering up an irrelevant morsel of information? I don't care if a game is AAA or not, it's about as important as further reading of your posts!
AAA level graphics are what bring new potential general players into the RTS genre. like when CoH1 first came out in 2006. or SC2 in 2010 or RA3 in 2008.
without AAA level graphics and support the players who are getting older and leaving won't be replaced. which is precisely what is happening right now.
On May 17 2014 05:35 urboss wrote: Cory Stockton from Blizzard Nov 2013:
“Where I think about it, if we ever did Warcraft IV, I would want it to somehow play off this world that’s been made over the last ten years. I would love to see that if that’s what [the RTS team] decided they wanted to do. Heroes of the Storm is dominating that group at this point, though. But I’d love to see Warcraft IV take shape around what we did with WoW. Because so much of WoW came from Warcraft. Like, we were able to take a single map and turn it into a whole expansion. Stuff like that. It’d be cool to see them take our stuff and convert it back down.”
i wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard is hoping some great community game makers end up making WC4.. The tools are right there
Basically, the great Galaxy Builder or MOD Kit or whatever its called is a very nice exit strategy by Blizzard
If SC2 were incredibly protfiable Blizzard would hire a bunch of people and have 1 team on RTS and 1 team on MOBA. unfortunately, that is not the case.
If Blizzard's new MOBA makes major cash i suspect the "RTS Team" will all vote to just make more content for the MOBA. Gotta keep those bonus cheques coming in!
Blizzard sure knows how to hire and expand its WoW team though!
I don't understand your emphasis on false dichotomies. Blizzard has 3 series it has been pushing now of Diablo, StarCraft, and Warcraft. There was a total crash and redo on what became Diablo 3. StarCraft Ghost was completely canceled not to come back. Warcraft had 3 RTSs, a cancelled adventure game, and then a MMO that became its defining feature. After the MMO it had a boardgame, cardgame, and now Hearthstone. Branching over all of these is the MOBA currently being developed.
It seems like Blizzard is trying to advance each of its universes in rotation so they feel fresh. Warcraft, Diablo, and StarCraft EACH had a cancelled game that would fill in a gap in their releases. Warcraft got the MMO which is just completely different.
You better believe they asked themselves "when is too soon for LotV?" "When is too late for LotV?" in order to maximize profit. Heart of the Swarm came out in 2013, Wings of Liberty came out in 2010...Legacy of the Void was probably planned for 2015 or 2016 just for the spacing and timing to keep their game going.
Broodwar came out too fast after StarCraft (only 3 ladder seasons!) but most of their expansions were 1 year later (War2, Diablo 2, War3). So something has definitely changed as both Diablo 3 (2 years) and StarCraft 2 (3 years) had longer than 1 year waits for their expansions.
You are going to keep seeing the same rotation. Games are not going to stay within a genre as Warcraft has tried to move into Adventure while actually moving into MMO and a CCG. StarCraft almost had a move into first/third? person. And...what is Titan?
Blizzard's work on its game is commensurate with profit levels.
D3 and WoW are more profitable than SC2. and Blizzard makes decisions according to money.
and so, Blizzard has moved the RTS team over to a MOBA because they see it as a bigger market. This fact is outlined in Browder's opening speech at Blizzcon 2013. One guy is claiming this is because Browder knows the SC2 engine so it makes sense to move him over the the MOBA.
Browder is a very high level designer and his day-to-day job is not married to the SC2 engine. Browder does not interact with any gaming engines anywhere on the level of writing lines of code. This fact was outlined in the SC2 "behind hte scenes" DVD. Browder is not part of the "engine team".
D3 sold 15 million units and that number will jump in August. SC2 sold anywhere from 5 to 8 million depending on whose #s you want to believe. There is no point in comparing WoW's profitability to SC2.
This "rotation" continues to get longer and longer as Blizzard finds better, more profitable things to do. At this point Blizz is on pace to pump out a single $40 expansion for its RTS game over a 5 year period. But, there is no slow down in content for WoW. Could it be that WoW makes 8345949X more money than SC2? Gee i wonder?
On May 17 2014 10:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: D3 sold 15 million units and that number will jump in August. SC2 sold anywhere from 5 to 8 million depending on whose #s you want to believe. There is no point in comparing WoW's profitability to SC2.
This "rotation" continues to get longer and longer as Blizzard finds better, more profitable things to do. At this point Blizz is on pace to pump out a single $40 expansion for its RTS game over a 5 year period. But, there is no slow down in content for WoW. Could it be that WoW makes 8345949X more money than SC2? Gee i wonder?
They seem happy to subsidise SC2, which is good for us. It is however somewhat odd that they don't monetise SC2 further. Things many would gladly micro transaction for, like the starcrafts star decals, those paid name changes, merc unit skins and the BW theme. They gave them all out for just playing the game a certain amount.
It's never going to be comparable to the WoW cash cow, but it doesn't cost anything like as much to develop SC2. There's surely more than 10 times the effort goes into cutscenes and campaign design than will go into engine changes for LotV.
On May 17 2014 10:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: D3 sold 15 million units and that number will jump in August. SC2 sold anywhere from 5 to 8 million depending on whose #s you want to believe. There is no point in comparing WoW's profitability to SC2.
This "rotation" continues to get longer and longer as Blizzard finds better, more profitable things to do. At this point Blizz is on pace to pump out a single $40 expansion for its RTS game over a 5 year period. But, there is no slow down in content for WoW. Could it be that WoW makes 8345949X more money than SC2? Gee i wonder?
They seem happy to subsidise SC2, which is good for us. It is however somewhat odd that they don't monetise SC2 further. Things many would gladly micro transaction for, like the starcrafts star decals, those paid name changes, merc unit skins and the BW theme. They gave them all out for just playing the game a certain amount.
It's never going to be comparable to the WoW cash cow, but it doesn't cost anything like as much to develop SC2. There's surely more than 10 times the effort goes into cutscenes and campaign design than will go into engine changes for LotV.
Blizzard did a comedy video with Jace Hall and making fun of companies that do silly things to monetize games.
Blizzard is all about protecting their brand... and they don't want to come up with dumb monetization schemes that makes their over all brand look bad when it might only bring in a couple of million dollars at most.
some ideas were .. "paid race change" , "break the game into 14 parts" , "paying for every click during a game"
Blizzard is very careful about asking its customers for money.
On May 17 2014 07:36 aZealot wrote: I'm not sure about arguments for RTS games to require less clicking. Personally, I like the the repetitive cyclic clicking.
It's quite soothing.
I don't think the problem is of the amount of clicking, but of the distances the "click zones" are in.
In most games (fighting, shooting, MOBA, etc...) the click zones are inherently character focused wherein there is a point of reference where you maintain a focus to in regards to clicking/button press.
In a fighting game, for instance, you need fast reflexes, high apm, and the ability to string button combinations fast and immediately. However, you're only attempting to affect the immediate area of your screen with a singular focus.
Going infinite with Ironman in any of the VS games requires much more complex micro than marine splits and and kiting. However, the difficulty with splitting and kiting is not that those things are themselves difficult to do, but you need to be doing them in parallel with defending enemy harass, executing your own harass, and maintaining base production. All those things happening in 3-5 different parts of the map all at once. Most players (especially lowbies like myself) zone out and get stuck only "focusing" on 2-3 of those parts instead of all of it.
Some bronzie will feel they lost to Protoss despite their marine micro when they forgot to produce units for 15 seconds. A silver player feels his macro was immaculate and zerg is OP without realizing that his drops only hit extractors while his main army never splits far enough apart or splits too far apart. And so on and so forth. Its not really the speed and dexterity that is the problem, its that people can't just memorize a way to "do it" like they can a lot of other games.
I would say Dance Dance Revolution is much more impressive both dexterity wise and APM wise than any RTS. Its physically hard, takes insane amounts of coordination, and is far easier for viewers to Grok than an RTS. But 400apm is not really what makes an RTS impressive, nor is it pure strategy.
People are not bothered by the hand speed requirements, people are bothered that they can't just pour that APM into just what's in front of them.
But, isn't that because a game like SC demands more things to memorize? Especially as the game goes on? At the start I just focus on my base and a couple of units, then on my base and more units, then a couple of bases and more units and so on. If the problem is the clicks required for base management + army management then that cuts to the heart of what an RTS game is (and the problem is a circular one). If the problem is the way or the system by which base management + army management is performed then that is an interesting way to conceive the problem. I hope I am reading you right here.
No no,
What I'm saying is... Hmm... How to put it...
Imagine Player A has 200 APM (arbitrary number)
Player A *wants* to spend 200 APM in the battle, but he instead spends 100 of those actions in the battle and 100 in his base.
Unless he does a drop, suddenly its 33/33/33, but what if he's getting dropped as well? Maybe the fight is important? so maybe he's going 40/15/15/15/10/5 as he microes the fight, scouted a hidden expo, sniped a drop, dropped an expo, maintained production, etc...
So in that 1 minute time span, the average player would like to spend 200 of his APM just microing units in the big fight. But in that 1 minute time span he instead is juggling 5 different things.
Now it doesn't matter if he has 200apm, 30apm, or 400apm. It goes against an average player's nature to want to split his APM.
Well, for that approach to be worthwhile, you'd have to assume that there is actually 200 effective APM to spend in the battle (or even more given the mechanical ability of the player). There might not be (game and context of the game dependent) leading to a lot of dead time. Second, splitting APM between points in the game and managing time is (IMO) an integral part of what makes a good RTS. Removing that element of decision and prioritising actions makes for a poorer game.
It's difficult to actually have cogent discussions about this, because the average player is a construct. I mean, I think of myself as an average game player (and a poor SC player), but so far I find MOBA games dull and boring and I find the difficulty of an RTS game like SC attractive (even if frustrating). If the argument is that overall game management in RTS games is too difficult for the average player, and to remove it entirely, then that's an argument I don't get and am not sympathetic to.
The 200 is arbitrary, it could be as low as 3 apm and as high as 300 and it would still be the same. Now, as someone who loves RTS games, I love that aspect of the genre.
What I'm mostly talking about is the habit most new players have of getting stuck staring at their army and not looking at their base. Or getting stuck just clicking around their base until they have a 200 supply army, and then a-moving it. Most bad players take one aspect of an RTS (army control, base building, defense, harass, etc...) and they learn to do that one thing at the cost of doing everything else. As they get better, they learn to multitask more and more. But whether or not they enjoy that multitask is the barrier (I feel) to an RTS and not the actual APM requirements.
So in the discourse of "how do we make an RTS more attractive to Casuals" the solutions should not be about how do we diminish the multitasking, but instead the question should "how do we make the various tasks feel effortless?"
A good example of a game that did this very well is Portal. It guided you through the campaign to learn different individual tasks, and then threw you into a "non-lab" zone where you had to use multiple aspects of what you learned in sequence (without guidance) to get past obstacles. Portal 2, though more difficult and complex, failed at this since the open world environment forced you into very linear problem solving solutions that were overly obvious due to how many limitations they placed on you.
The presentation matters, and the campaign experience matters. Make the campaign too different from the multiplayer experience and you will shatter your player's expectations of themselves. What do I mean by this?
90% of scenarios in RTS campaigns have you start from 0 and your enemy has the whole map. You HAVE to turtle, you CANT be proactive, the game gets HARDER if you start splitting up your forces, etc... So when those noobs shift to Multiplayer, they perform what the campaign taught them. Don't leave your base, expand rarely/slowly. Don't move out until 200 supply.
They also take to heart the AI's habits.
The enemy does not rush. When they do rush, they use the same compositions each time and you simply make the unit that counters that composition. They always attack at regular predictable intervals from set directions; if you fill those lanes with base defense then they rush headfirst into your grinder.
Then they go vs humans and they get picked apart. They never *learn* what an RTS is, instead they are mislead. If you want casuals to have an understanding of an RTS, give them a campaign that teaches them aspects of an RTS not through difficulty, but by actually teaching them specific ways to do specific tasks and teach them *why* those tasks are important.
For example, have a map where the goal is to teach them drop harass. And literally just give them 2-3 dropships and troops, and have the mission be kill X workers in Y time and the only way to do is to drop multiple places at once. Instead of giving players a "survive for 15-30 minutes" with slow build up of attacks, make them survive 7-8 minutes where the enemy rushes in the first 4-6 minutes when the player only has workers and 1-3 units.
Have missions that only lasts 5-7 minutes to teach you just one aspect of the game. Double the number of missions, each one half as big. Make it so that by the end of the campaign the player is taught a skillset that he needs to be apt in to be able to get through the campaign.
EPT
what a theif
