|
There has been talk of this thing called the skill ceiling and how games gets n00bified. I believe the entire line of argument about skill ceiling is an mistake when applied to real games in the RTS genre. What kills competitive play is a boring games at the competitive level, not lack of skill.
Index
1. Why it is not merely "skill"
2. What is fun
3. How Starcraft succeeded
4. Suggestion for future games
-----
1. Why the skill argument fail.
In a balanced game, the only factor that result in winning is skill and luck. In any RTS game, mirror races in symmetric maps result in a balanced game. In a game without using random number generators or pronounced pseudo-random factors, skill would automatically dominate. In addition, additional iterations of games played would magnify the effect of skill, as Bo5 lets the stronger player win more often than Bo1, and Bo120 would amplify even the smallest skill difference into visible differences in wins.
Lets take a look at one of those games that people denounce and see why they fail: Lets take a C&C-like game where both side chooses the strongest side and do the strongest, mirror, build. After spending 5 minutes building, the units clash in the middle for 10 seconds of intense micro before one side wins.
This game fails. This is due to the fact that you get 5 minutes of boredom for 10 seconds of fun. This is not due to a skill ceiling because that 10 seconds have a skill ceiling up to near infinity since no human can control even a dozen unit perfectly with only one mouse pointer when an advantage can be gained in under quarter of a second.
Even if the players do hit a ceiling, it is extremely easy to raise the skill ceiling to whatever people want. Just speed up the game, force them to play on a DDR pad or reduce screen resolution to 40x40 or make them skip ropes while balancing a bucket over their head while playing or make them 3 games at the same time. Making a game harder to perfect is trivial and that is not the reason why a game fails.
What makes games fail at the competitive level is that it is no longer fun to watch or play when it is played at such a level.
------------------
2. What is "fun"
When people talk about skill ceilings, it is not really about "being able to perfect the things players can do to help him win" but the "limit in the number of interesting things in the game at the competitive level."
That said, different people find different things interesting and that is why there is so many different games across so many different genres. That said, people's tastes aren't quite so different and some games are more successful than others. Some universal principles I have gathered are listed below, listed in order of importance.
I. Consistent Challenge: Challenge is fun. A game must provide some challenge at every phase of the game. This is where many games fails, since the player is bored doing things like executing a mindless BO. It is not about absolute skill requirements to win, but down time in a match where player and watcher attention drifts. The important part is to tune the game so that every phase require attention, is important and has interesting things going on. In other words, importance of time has to be balanced. Never should a game be pointless in the first 5 minutes for only 10 seconds of worthy battle followed by another 5 minutes of dull clean up of someone refusing to gg.
In addition to challenges of control, there needs to be consistent intellectual challenge, over phases of an individual game and the game's lifetime. This comes from Diversity in the game, which results from BALANCE, depth, probabilistic factors and variation between the individual games played (aka maps, settings, etc). The topic is large enough for its own thread.
II. Control: Games are different from other medium in the control it provide. Predictable, effective, and responsive controls that gets better with practice is generally desirable. (unless contradicted by other requirements) Things like stupid dragoons that run circles around a ramp or "too smart" Company of Heros snipers that dives into cover outside control of players violate this as it is more random than anything. It is just pleasant to control things, may it be cars, planes or 10 hatchery and mutalisks. Many games are built on this principle alone.
III. Theme and intuition: Games for most people are considered thematically and intuitively as opposed to mathematically. The more the game follows intuitive concepts, the better. Flanks, surrounds and looks and feel better than say, complex armor class interactions with 20 confusing looking buff/debuff casted on a unit, regardless of difficulties or control or complexity involved. All the above factors are only meaningful if the player or observer is aware of it, so it doesn't matter how complicated and deep the optimal play is or the complexities of muta micro if the player doesn't know that it exists, and this is yet another common failing in games. For dedicated "play to win" gamers, this may not be huge, but intuitive gameplay is absolutely necessary to generate a casual following that produces future competitive players and watches the games.
The difference between a competitive player and a noncompetitive one is often decided by the willingness to break the theme to learn the mechanics to win at the game. However, even for competitive players, they still follow a theme rule otherwise they'd be fine with "terrible games" like playing SC with 40x40 resolution. Ideally, there should be no huge break between the two groups. There isn't a non-competitive Quake 3 community that somehow has to play radically differently from the skilled people, for example. (unlike Starcraft)
-----------------
How did Starcraft succeed
Starcraft has been one of the most successful RTS, and there are a few things in its design that made it possible.
I. Heavy Geometric dependence on balance of units and races:
One of the most important thing about Starcraft is that geometry of engagement is absolutely important in everything. Just about every unit counters another in the right terrain and engagement geometry and hard counters are rare. This made the map editor extremely powerful tool, in both balance and creating diverse games.
II. Intuitive combat model: Combat micro in Starcraft is in large part about controlling the ground. Spell casting is marginal, simple and visible, so is targeting, (compared to say, wc3) due to short times involved in the actual engagement and relatively simple spell effects.
III. Stable pressure and back and game play in some matchups: Due to defender's advantage and easy to harass (peon are weak, unit mobility can be great) but hard to kill (buildings are tough) design of the game, in some match ups there is always a way to get a small advantage in every phase of the game, without ending it right there. This lead to games that can go back and forth as opposed to one knock out punch games that is common in failed RTS games.
---------------
How this effect future game design
Looking at topics in isolation (micro/macro/specific unit) is not so helpful as, perhaps, looking at an APM selection chart and the number of branch points in strategy guides. Thinking about whether something can be made hard is pointless. It is probably better to think in terms of phases and diversity, so if a phase of a game is too boring, you make that part more challenging. If people keep on doing something to the point of boredom, you give them something else to do. The inverse can also happen, for example if a game element is too hard and too decisive resulting in lessened importance for other parts of the game, you nerf its importance and difficulty so other parts of the game is not overshadowed.
The game design question is thus this: Would the game as a whole be fun in providing stable pressure, responsive control and diversity without breaking the theme when it is played competitively?
------------
Side notes: I don't think, however, the above necessarily supports macro since it breaks the theme badly in requiring dumb baby sitting nor is the mechanic pleasurable to control in itself for most people and does not grow intellectually over time. Its probably better to look for diversity and pressure from other paths, like adding harass units during lulls in fighting.
|
2. What is skill? [What makes a game more skillful?]
I. Consistent Challenge: Challenge is fun. A game must provide some challenge at every phase of the game. This is where many games fails, since the player is bored doing things like executing a mindless BO. It is not about absolute skill requirements to win, but down time in a match where player and watcher attention drifts. The important part is to tune the game so that every phase require attention, is important and has interesting things going on. In other words, importance of time has to be balanced. Never should a game be pointless in the first 5 minutes for only 10 seconds of worthy battle followed by another 5 minutes of dull clean up of someone refusing to gg.
In addition to challenges of control, there needs to be consistent intellectual challenge, over phases of an individual game and the game's lifetime. This comes from Diversity in the game, which results from BALANCE, depth, probabilistic factors and variation between the individual games played (aka maps, settings, etc). The topic is large enough for its own thread.
II. Control: Games are different from other medium in the control it provide. Predictable, effective, and responsive controls that gets better with practice is generally desirable. (unless contradicted by other requirements) Things like stupid dragoons that run circles around a ramp or "too smart" Company of Heros snipers that dives into cover outside control of players violate this as it is more random than anything. It is just pleasant to control things, may it be cars, planes or 10 hatchery and mutalisks. Many games are built on this principle alone.
[I disagree that dragoons violate this part =0...They are 1. Predicatable (you have to click alot otherwise they will go where ever THEY want), effective IF you click alot (fine...its not effective =/), and as responsive as you can get, with laag online etc.]
III. Theme and intuition: Games for most people are considered thematically and intuitively as opposed to mathematically. The more the game follows intuitive concepts, the better. Flanks, surrounds and looks and feel better than say, complex armor class interactions with 20 confusing looking buff/debuff casted on a unit, regardless of difficulties or control or complexity involved. All the above factors are only meaningful if the player or observer is aware of it, so it doesn't matter how complicated and deep the optimal play is or the complexities of muta micro if the player doesn't know that it exists, and this is yet another common failing in games. For dedicated "play to win" gamers, this may not be huge, but intuitive gameplay is absolutely necessary to generate a casual following that produces future competitive players and watches the games.
+ Show Spoiler +Skill is an important factor in the game, but HOW the skill is implemented needs to be fun. The first point (constant attention) is the most important of the three (imo), and the other two are already in most RTS games. People are scared that the game will no longer be fun, because the game is too easy, and doesn't provide this. When people say that the game will fail because its not skilled enough, they are really saying that the game will fail because it is not skilled enough, and thus not fun anymore.
|
On January 23 2009 17:16 SWPIGWANG wrote:
Never should a game be pointless in the first 5 minutes for only 10 seconds of worthy battle followed by another 5 minutes of dull clean up of someone refusing to gg.
Interesting that you should mention this. This is Blizzard's argument for increasing the number of drones available at the beginning of the game - it's pointless to have 30 seconds when the only thing happening is building more drones to collect more resources.
Although this is actually quite important for televised games... give presenters a chance to talk about the players =)
|
I generally agree with the op but I think that most of the people that consider physical demands as skill will not.
You did a really nice write-up there, unfortunately many people tried similar things in the past and it usually resulted in a flamewar between different playerbases (more hardcore, more casual, those in the middle and those undecided).
|
Yer I am torn between the slow early game or a faster one. Faster one requires you calm yourself and prepare mentally (including going over your builds) before the game starts, and players will still need this time so in broadcast progaming there still may be a delay (unless they do all of it before coming onto stage).
As for the user, I find this part the most nervous but because it is slow it is easy to calm yourself and ensure your builds are spot on, spam APM to set your tempo for the rest of the game, and get in the mindset. WarCraft III Starts of slightly faster as you build off the start but then slows down around the time you are going into tier 2 where both players are creeping and this time plays a similar role for me (Although you must still remain alert as you want to hit the right creeps and ensure the enemy doesn't attack you while doing so).
I can see how speeding up the start of the game a bit from SC will improve it, as the start is a little repetitive and there will still be time to think, clam yourself, and for some off-topic commentary. I just hope it doesn't speed it up too fast so that players who load faster win. xD
|
you refer to macro as mindless babysittin . This only show ur ignorance and short view what certainly remove the credit in writin so long text -gd btw-
|
Osaka27139 Posts
On January 23 2009 19:31 Ki_Do wrote:
you refer to macro as mindless babysittin . This only show ur ignorance and short view what certainly remove the credit in writin so long text -gd btw-
BOOM
See you. We don't need your negative crap no the forum and you have received too many warnings anyway.
|
On January 23 2009 19:37 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 19:31 Ki_Do wrote:
you refer to macro as mindless babysittin . This only show ur ignorance and short view what certainly remove the credit in writin so long text -gd btw- BOOM See you. We don't need your negative crap no the forum and you have received too many warnings anyway.
I hope you are joking.
Ki_Do is right if you ask me.
It was a good write until he mentioned mindless babysitting... Unless he is referring to some other game.
There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft.
|
On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:
There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft.
0p9p0p9p0p9p0p9p
|
On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 19:37 Manifesto7 wrote:On January 23 2009 19:31 Ki_Do wrote:
you refer to macro as mindless babysittin . This only show ur ignorance and short view what certainly remove the credit in writin so long text -gd btw- BOOM See you. We don't need your negative crap no the forum and you have received too many warnings anyway. I hope you are joking. Ki_Do is right if you ask me. It was a good write until he mentioned mindless babysitting... Unless he is referring to some other game. There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft.
It would have been okay if he actually used any time in explaining his view and not just saying "lol u wrong ha!".
The op clearly put a lot of time in expressing his opinion and so should the ones replying to him do.
The topic can be seen from so many different points there is no definitive "correct" answer to it, so there is no room for comments like what Ki_Do posted.
|
On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 19:37 Manifesto7 wrote:On January 23 2009 19:31 Ki_Do wrote:
you refer to macro as mindless babysittin . This only show ur ignorance and short view what certainly remove the credit in writin so long text -gd btw- BOOM See you. We don't need your negative crap no the forum and you have received too many warnings anyway. I hope you are joking. Ki_Do is right if you ask me. It was a good write until he mentioned mindless babysitting... Unless he is referring to some other game. There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft.
I assumed he was talking about things like the proposed gas mechanic. Which sounds like the most boring tedious activity ever.
To the OP, I say great post.
Well considered and written I agree with what you are saying.
Wolf.
|
On January 23 2009 20:15 Lamentations wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:
There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft. 0p9p0p9p0p9p0p9p
When do you ever do that in a game ever?
Have you ever played starcraft before?
I don't think you'll do very well if you mindlessly babysit your nexuses like that and stack up 4 queued probes.
|
On January 23 2009 20:15 Lamentations wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:
There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft. 0p9p0p9p0p9p0p9p
This post made me smile.
It reminded me of the saying (translating from Serbian, I hope it comes out well)
"Every joke is half true."
Back on topic, there is much truth in the OP, definitely a good writeup.
Edit: minor spelling errors.
|
Well doing 0p9p8p7o every now and then can be considered mindless babysitting.
There's no strategy to it appart from when you have to chose between doing other stuff, and putting your probes on mineral patches.
|
I quickly read over some of it, but by and large I agree with the op. Thing is starcraft is fun and it was made by people just wanting to publish a game for a game company, there were no professional gamers involved, no e-sports scene, none of the crap. It was fun and people played it and let's face it most gamers--pro or not--are nerds at heart who really enjoy playing games. The mindless babysitting part, maybe its stretching it a bit, but it has at least some merit to it since you're doing things that really have nothing to do with the actual opponent you're playing just that you have to keep building.
Fun dominates everything.
|
I wonder if progamers have fun.....being a progamer seems so stressful....
|
On January 23 2009 22:50 SCC-AlwaysGG wrote:
I wonder if progamers have fun.....being a progamer seems so stressful....
I remember NaDa saying in his interview that he really does not enjoy it anymore like a casual player would and its not something he does for fun anymore.
I guess most of them share the same mentality.
|
On January 23 2009 21:12 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 20:15 Lamentations wrote:On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:
There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft. 0p9p0p9p0p9p0p9p When do you ever do that in a game ever? Have you ever played starcraft before? I don't think you'll do very well if you mindlessly babysit your nexuses like that and stack up 4 queued probes.
Babysitting does not involve starting at the baby for hours on end, taking short breaks only to catch up on breathing or going to the bathroom. It is checking back on it often while doing other things :/
|
nevermind ... i think i got it now
thx InRaged
|
Heavy Geometric dependence on balance of units and races:
One of the most important thing about Starcraft is that geometry of engagement is absolutely important in everything. Just about every unit counters another in the right terrain and engagement geometry and hard counters are rare. This made the map editor extremely powerful tool, in both balance and creating diverse games.
One of the best postings around here since a long time.
I'm unsure wheter to agree or disagree with the overall thesis of the text. But some parts of his writing are brilliant. For example I can't remember someone pointing out the principle of geometic dependence in StarCraft as clearly as he has done here.
|
On January 23 2009 23:19 drowned wrote:
i can't link the thread title to his post
Fun kills competitive gameplay? and then sc is good cuz its fun?
someone enlighten me plz.
(sorry for not getting the point)
[Lack of] fun, not [lack of] skill, is what kills competitive play
|
On January 23 2009 23:11 Lamentations wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 21:12 -orb- wrote:On January 23 2009 20:15 Lamentations wrote:On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:
There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft. 0p9p0p9p0p9p0p9p When do you ever do that in a game ever? Have you ever played starcraft before? I don't think you'll do very well if you mindlessly babysit your nexuses like that and stack up 4 queued probes. Babysitting does not involve starting at the baby for hours on end, taking short breaks only to catch up on breathing or going to the bathroom. It is checking back on it often while doing other things :/
But you cannot qualify this as 'mindless babysitting'. This is what forces you to quickly move from different tasks. To be honest calling it 'mindless' means that it's unimportant and does not benefit you at all and is a waste of time. It's what makes the game competitive because of the ability for some to babysit better than others, if you want to refer to macro as babysitting.
Also I felt that the OP, though well written, didn't introduce anything we really didn't know already. Most of the discussion in his post can be discovered in other threads in this forum and the read felt rather redundant, that's all.
|
imo it's mindless enough, but the fun thing is not that task in isolation but having to multitask it.
|
On January 23 2009 23:36 SkyTheUnknown wrote:Show nested quote +
Heavy Geometric dependence on balance of units and races:
One of the most important thing about Starcraft is that geometry of engagement is absolutely important in everything. Just about every unit counters another in the right terrain and engagement geometry and hard counters are rare. This made the map editor extremely powerful tool, in both balance and creating diverse games.
One of the best postings around here since a long time. I'm unsure wheter to agree or disagree with the overall thesis of the text. But some parts of his writing are brilliant. For example I can't remember someone pointing out the principle of geometic dependence in StarCraft as clearly as he has done here.
Agreed. We should focus on discussing these parts, such as the positional/geometric importance of your army, rather than engaging in a pointless flame wary about the OP's "mindless babysitting" comment.
I think that SC2 in its current form has geometric importance for armies overall, but that maybe too many of the units are able to overcome those limitations (i.e. stalkers about to blink up/down cliffs, nydus worm emerging anywhere, colossus, reaper (not sure if it's still in), warp gate, etc). In BW, things could only overcome positional disadvantage at great cost. For example, arbiters required a lot of energy to be able to mass move their army somewhere, and dropships could only carry a few units so if you wanted to mass drop, you would have to heavily invest in many dropships. In SC2, it seems that mass armies are too easily movable and have too much ability to ignore the importance of cliffs and chokes.
On the plus side of SC2 geometric strategies, I really like that the high templar are able to cast force fields. Aside from the obvious ability to create chokes, it seems like it could inspire really creative plays like separating one part of the opponent's army from the rest and take things down piecemeal (like pick off the tanks with a forcefield between the tanks and the hellions/support forces, then retreating).
I also applaud the OP for a very well articulated post.
|
i agree with OP. diversity at every stage of the game is what SC has, and why it has succeeded. even acclaimed games like red alert 2 have very little diversity, which is why it is never played competitively anymore.
diversity really has nothing to do with "casual" or "hardcore." starcraft wasn't considered "hard," really, and starcraft 2 doesn't have to be "hard" either. If there is diversity, the players themselves will meld the (hopefully) meta game that starcraft 2 will be into the challenge that hardcore gamers want, and still allow casual gamers to have maximum fun.
very good post, OP.
|
On January 23 2009 20:11 MuR)Ernu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 19:37 Manifesto7 wrote:On January 23 2009 19:31 Ki_Do wrote:
you refer to macro as mindless babysittin . This only show ur ignorance and short view what certainly remove the credit in writin so long text -gd btw- BOOM See you. We don't need your negative crap no the forum and you have received too many warnings anyway. I hope you are joking. Ki_Do is right if you ask me. It was a good write until he mentioned mindless babysitting... Unless he is referring to some other game. There is no mindless babysitting in starcraft.
I think that partly he got banned to make a statement that we do not want more "mbs" threads and instead wants this thread to be about the good points the OP made.
If you read the forum rules any discussion on the mbs subject is forbidden so it was more than just because it was a negative comment, that comment could have ruined the whole thread due to how volatile the whole discussion is.
And if you look even now the discussion is brewing and I hope that everyone who even tries to discuss this stops right now because it will never lead anywhere. The op might not be correct on that point in your opinion but please for everyone's sake ignore it, read the post as if those line did not exist.
|
I normally do 0pp9pp in stead of 0p9p after about 5 mins in to the game. making 2 probs instead of one will give you more time to focus on your dt drop or reaver drop or whatever harass your should be doing at the time. The difference is mineral collected is very small..
|
Good points, but its not as simple as that because imo the skill ceiling and fun factors are linked together. It's fun to watch people do something they're really really good at and say "holy shit that guy isn't human."
The C&C example isn't fun for several reasons. One is that the players are displaying a repetitive and potentially mundane skill.
|
On January 24 2009 00:12 Amber[LighT] wrote:
But you cannot qualify this as 'mindless babysitting'. This is what forces you to quickly move from different tasks. To be honest calling it 'mindless' means that it's unimportant and does not benefit you at all and is a waste of time. It's what makes the game competitive because of the ability for some to babysit better than others, if you want to refer to macro as babysitting.
I do think that macro is in many times mindless, but it is still beneficial. Just because something is mindless doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. Doing 100 math problems that your teacher assigned is mindless, but it IS beneficial (you don't get a 0 for homework). This may just be a semantic point, as I agree that it makes the game competitive because some can babysit (multitask) better than others, but it's important to realize that for a multitask-dependant game like starcraft, all components (micro, macro) of a player's actions must be put into context.
On January 24 2009 00:52 Phrujbaz wrote:
imo it's mindless enough, but the fun thing is not that task in isolation but having to multitask it.
I think Phrujbaz got it. Macro is mindless as in when you remember to go back, click d click d click d click d on every gateway is not hard. But the challenge (and the fun) is doing it quickly and multitasking effectively, while in combat, or while doing a storm drop, or transferring workers to dodge a reaver drop.
|
Macro in starcraft isn't mindless babysitting. It gives a deep element to the game. The fact that you have to divide your time in micro and macro. Sometimes you have to macro less to do some epic micro madness or vice versa.
|
When people argue for the physical aspects of the game (which I can understand, it is impressive to see 500 APM, and it is as much a part of the game as everything else virtual), I can only think of one thing. I mean it really drags in my head and i'm not convinced that a game needs to have a physical dexterity barrier for it to be played.
When you think about it, there's game, yes a game, a game just like Starcraft. With a rich history dating to 500 years past, and even further then that. They call it the King's Game, it requires no physical dexterity what-so-ever (a paralyzed man could play this game). It is and it's players have been revered throughout the world for their prowess in it.
What game is it? Chess
It's a strategy game just like Starcraft, although it's turn based rather then real time. But for those who say that a game would lack depth, challenge, longevity, competitiveness and whatever else. Do you really think that's true? Chess has been around for 500 years and much longer then that through it's predecessors. It's a pure mind game, no physical prowess required to execute even the most adept moves.
I understand that Chess may not be the game for some people, but don't downplay another game for not being the game YOU want it to be.
|
substitute "chess" for "go" and you have a decent point
|
On January 24 2009 05:10 Phrujbaz wrote:substitute "chess" for " go" and you have a decent point
Go is harder for computers but if it is actually harder for humans is debatable.
|
I think it's more fun for humans than computers though.
|
Comparing chess and starcraft is just silly. Why not compare chess and soccer too? They both need some strategy right?
No, chess= 100% mindgame.
Starcraft= Mindgame/Physical. Depending on your playstyle the procentages change. Some people are like 80% strategy and 20% mechanics, etc.
It's a completely different thing. Starcraft is basically a physical sport in a way, but still strategic. Actually videogames go in their own category in sports, nothing is really similar.
And if you make an RTS without the physical side, it most likely will suck. It's not just all that fun imo.
Also, sc2 will probably still be "hard" and still has some of the physical aspect. But why play it when there is a lot better game around?
From what i have seen i like SC more.
These things i don't like about sC2:
-3d graphics (not really all that important but i like 2d more).
- MBS, automine, infinite unit selection, autocast, uber unit AI. (more like the fact they
made it easier.)
*Also the fact that they easified it by making macro too easy, and then adding stupid shit like the gas mechaninc and that dark pylon stuff.
- The fact that it will be "complete" only after like 4years(the expansions and patching).
Now some of you might think its fine but i don't.
|
I think Starcraft is best compared to something like, say, Football than chess. Starcraft is a sport that involves only fingers but nonetheless a sport. No one ever complained that physical sports had a physical element, but those same sports have a lot of strategy too.
As for progamers having fun, I'm note sure they do have fun the way a casual would, but they very much are passionate about it. They never would have become without loving it and having fun at some point. There must be something more than money and fame that brings them back into the game after hours and hours of practice.
The main thing about this thread is to stop the community split somewhat in showing that Starcraft succeeded because factors other than "zomg it is so hard" so hopefully people would not evaluate ideas using the "does it make the game harder" rule.
The skill ceiling is very much a myth created by unimaginative players that can not imagine any skill outside the one they have already. Even for a strategically degenerate game like RPS (rock paper scissors) could run a tournament where skill exists (due to non-ideal random number generation by humans or seeded programs) shows that strategy and skill exists as long as a human is the opponent and the game have even one element of randomness and complexity. If a game only have a circular build order counter (bo1>bo2>bo3>bo1), the game can be unboundedly skillful in the metagame, where competitive players would spend all their time computing Bo probability.
==============================================
Thematic considerations in more detail:
This is rather disorganized since it is my thoughts of the moment, so sorry about that.
Aside from poor balance, the main problem with many games is that the required skill is different from the nominal task at hand and this creates a split in the community of those who wants to play how the game feels and those that wants to play the mechanics.
Let me tell you what different players wants to do.
The casual player thinks he is the commander and wants to do commander like thing, like controlling his large army, flanking opponents and fight, things traditionally related to that of a field commander.
The mechanics, "hardcore" player would do whatever the games requires him to do to win.
If the game works like how its marketed, and you if "win" mechanically by being good at doing commander-like things, than there is no split in the community. If there is strange tasks that doesn't feel quite right, like having to go back to base every 20 seconds to move a worker, than the casual folks would be annoyed and the player base would be split. If it is at all possible, it would be best if EVERYTHING in the game is built out of intuitive and thematic concepts. The game maker are suppose to build a game that fits the player base's ideas and biases about what he should do, as opposed force a new set on him.
-----
I remember ages ago when Starcraft was still in alpha and there was talk about Terrans being able to salvage wrecks for resources (zomg macro mechanics!) the discussion that took place in the casual circle. My group had people that constantly whined about the stupidity of RTS units and how they should throw strong AI into them so they'd do smart thing so they feel like they are commanding a real army as opposed to dumb lego blocks. Over the years I've heard this line pop up over and over.
Well, modern stabs at this have shown this to be rather mistaken, since "intelligent" units means units that do their own thing and ignore what the commander wants them to do. Real human beings get into traffic jams and cause friendly fire all the same, and annoy their superiors all the time.
From that experience, I learned what it is really about. They want games to give them the control to play out their fantasy of how things is suppose to be, mechanics be damned.
These players are not "anti-competitive" since they very much have the desire to win within their own domain of often unspoken rules. They just refuse to see the game as mechanics.
And I don't think they are so wrong. There is a reason why most games have a theme and "mathematical games" don't get played as much. Why not replace the marine with a blue box and the seige tank with a yellow one? Why name it starcraft rather than mathcraft where all terrain is reduced to 3 different colors (to reflect 3 levels) as opposed to the complex texture we have now? Why have a back story, a campaign, intricately designed units, and all that?
If Starcraft is merely its mechanics, than none of those things matter.
|
On January 24 2009 05:16 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2009 05:10 Phrujbaz wrote:substitute "chess" for " go" and you have a decent point Go is harder for computers but if it is actually harder for humans is debatable.
A game is always as hard as your opponent plus luck. There is not much luck in go, therefore it is as hard as the person across the table.
People are scared that the game will no longer be fun, because the game is too easy, and doesn't provide this.
It is easy to make the game harder, even if by a afterthought patch. Making it challenging in the right way is the difficult part. Mindlessly promoting "hard" things is not the right way to go, as balance is important.
|
On January 24 2009 05:51 MuR)Ernu wrote:
Comparing chess and starcraft is just silly. Why not compare chess and soccer too? They both need some strategy right?
No, chess= 100% mindgame.
Starcraft= Mindgame/Physical. Depending on your playstyle the procentages change. Some people are like 80% strategy and 20% mechanics, etc.
It's a completely different thing. Starcraft is basically a physical sport in a way, but still strategic. Actually videogames go in their own category in sports, nothing is really similar.
And if you make an RTS without the physical side, it most likely will suck. It's not just all that fun imo.
Also, sc2 will probably still be "hard" and still has some of the physical aspect. But why play it when there is a lot better game around?
From what i have seen i like SC more.
These things i don't like about sC2:
-3d graphics (not really all that important but i like 2d more).
- MBS, automine, infinite unit selection, autocast, uber unit AI. (more like the fact they
made it easier.)
*Also the fact that they easified it by making macro too easy, and then adding stupid shit like the gas mechaninc and that dark pylon stuff.
- The fact that it will be "complete" only after like 4years(the expansions and patching).
Now some of you might think its fine but i don't.
I merely stated that a game does not require physical aspect to be rewarding, fun, challenging, competitive and have longevity. That is a entirely a personal preference, and it doesn't make a game--less of a game that has that physical aspect. That is just your opinion. I compared the two because both are strategy games.
|
When you make an RTS with easy mechanics, people will eventually have "perfect" mechanics. After that it's simply not as interesting. UNLESS you add so much strategic complexity etc. But that will be too much for the average gamer and spectator i think.
Starcraft is interesting because nobody is perfect. Everyone has their weaknesses and strenghts, both strategically and mechanically. There is always something to improve.
IMO a succesful game needs to be simple, but deep. Think about it, the ruless of chess or Go are pretty simple, yet the games are very VERY deep.
Same goes for starcraft too. anyone should be able to pick it up quickly. And the basics are pretty simple right? Get a good economy and make units and fight. And add the physical aspect to it, and the fact that you have to divide your time between micro and macro makes it interesting.
Also imo an RTS needs a physical aspect, if not for that, what would be the point of it being realtime?
Turn based strategygames (which include chess and go) are the deep ones, where you have to think very carefully, and usually you have a long time to think.
RTS games are more about split-second decisions and that kind of stuff.
Probably the reason why people are passionate about this game is that there is always something to improve, and when you play against an opponent, its his skill versus your skill.
And there is also the fact that there are so many styles, i mean think of it, there are 3 races which are completely different, but balanced. So there are 3 "archetypes" of players and their skill and styles are diverse. It's like a Mixed martial arts tournament, different people with different styles fight with each other.
And also there's the thing that its just fun to play it.
I would like to see some psychological study of why people get so passionate about sports (and other competitive thingys).
|
If the game works like how its marketed, and you if "win" mechanically by being good at doing commander-like things, than there is no split in the community. If there is strange tasks that doesn't feel quite right, like having to go back to base every 20 seconds to move a worker, than the casual folks would be annoyed and the player base would be split. If it is at all possible, it would be best if EVERYTHING in the game is built out of intuitive and thematic concepts. The game maker are suppose to build a game that fits the player base's ideas and biases about what he should do, as opposed force a new set on him.
That's why nobody likes Starcraft yah.
The skill ceiling is very much a myth created by unimaginative players that can not imagine any skill outside the one they have already. Even for a strategically degenerate game like RPS (rock paper scissors) could run a tournament where skill exists (due to non-ideal random number generation by humans or seeded programs) shows that strategy and skill exists as long as a human is the opponent and the game have even one element of randomness and complexity. If a game only have a circular build order counter (bo1>bo2>bo3>bo1), the game can be unboundedly skillful in the metagame, where competitive players would spend all their time computing Bo probability.
Well a great deal of players like me don't care about any form of skill other than physical. It's just the most interesting to us. For example, when I took martial arts, I never cared to learn technique application, when to do what etc. I just wanted to practice roundhouse kicks on a heavy bag over and over and over again until it was as damaging as a kick from the really big guy in class. I could care less if it was time to clinch or time to elbow or knee, I enjoyed pwning opponents with superior mechanics. In much the same way, I can have just as much fun practicing macro on my own and doing mock micro or whatever without even needing an opponent. There's just something extremely enjoyable to me about muscle memory, whether it's about worker building every ten seconds, proper MA technical ability, throwing a ball through a hoop, hitting a ball with a bat, spinning a ping pong ball, or any other similar task. It's just what I enjoy seeing as the primary skill factor involved. I like to think of strategy as a tie breaker between two equally skilled players. I don't see strategy as a skill in itself.
As for the Chess comment, I liken Chess to a SC match where both players are equally skilled, and thus have to use strategy to see who wins. With that said there is no harm for someone like me to learn Chess. I just have a problem with people with inferior mechanics beating someone just because of their tactics (cheese?). And since Chess has no mechanics it's fair game. But to change a video game, something that has by tradition always required muscle memory, to allow some random noob to win just by thinking harder is a huge slap in the face to the guy who actually trains his hands on the keyboard.
|
On January 24 2009 04:46 Amarxist wrote:
When people argue for the physical aspects of the game (which I can understand, it is impressive to see 500 APM, and it is as much a part of the game as everything else virtual), I can only think of one thing. I mean it really drags in my head and i'm not convinced that a game needs to have a physical dexterity barrier for it to be played.
When you think about it, there's game, yes a game, a game just like Starcraft. With a rich history dating to 500 years past, and even further then that. They call it the King's Game, it requires no physical dexterity what-so-ever (a paralyzed man could play this game). It is and it's players have been revered throughout the world for their prowess in it.
What game is it? Chess
It's a strategy game just like Starcraft, although it's turn based rather then real time. But for those who say that a game would lack depth, challenge, longevity, competitiveness and whatever else. Do you really think that's true? Chess has been around for 500 years and much longer then that through it's predecessors. It's a pure mind game, no physical prowess required to execute even the most adept moves.
I understand that Chess may not be the game for some people, but don't downplay another game for not being the game YOU want it to be.
Actually, Chess and Starcraft have one big difference. Chess is a game of completely open knowledge whereas Starcraft is a game of hidden knowledge.
I prefer emphasizing the physical aspects in SC2 (as far as SC:BW) for no other reason than because it takes practice and dedication and often times reflects how good you are at the game. It's not necessary to keep these physical aspects at such a level but I guess I'm just stuck on "don't fix what's not broken".
|
good read imo.
I agree with a lot of wat ur saying. but i still think atleast AUTOmine should leave. right now
|
On January 24 2009 10:45 NatsuTerran wrote:Show nested quote +
If the game works like how its marketed, and you if "win" mechanically by being good at doing commander-like things, than there is no split in the community. If there is strange tasks that doesn't feel quite right, like having to go back to base every 20 seconds to move a worker, than the casual folks would be annoyed and the player base would be split. If it is at all possible, it would be best if EVERYTHING in the game is built out of intuitive and thematic concepts. The game maker are suppose to build a game that fits the player base's ideas and biases about what he should do, as opposed force a new set on him.
That's why nobody likes Starcraft yah. Show nested quote +The skill ceiling is very much a myth created by unimaginative players that can not imagine any skill outside the one they have already. Even for a strategically degenerate game like RPS (rock paper scissors) could run a tournament where skill exists (due to non-ideal random number generation by humans or seeded programs) shows that strategy and skill exists as long as a human is the opponent and the game have even one element of randomness and complexity. If a game only have a circular build order counter (bo1>bo2>bo3>bo1), the game can be unboundedly skillful in the metagame, where competitive players would spend all their time computing Bo probability. Well a great deal of players like me don't care about any form of skill other than physical. It's just the most interesting to us. For example, when I took martial arts, I never cared to learn technique application, when to do what etc. I just wanted to practice roundhouse kicks on a heavy bag over and over and over again until it was as damaging as a kick from the really big guy in class. I could care less if it was time to clinch or time to elbow or knee, I enjoyed pwning opponents with superior mechanics. In much the same way, I can have just as much fun practicing macro on my own and doing mock micro or whatever without even needing an opponent. There's just something extremely enjoyable to me about muscle memory, whether it's about worker building every ten seconds, proper MA technical ability, throwing a ball through a hoop, hitting a ball with a bat, spinning a ping pong ball, or any other similar task. It's just what I enjoy seeing as the primary skill factor involved. I like to think of strategy as a tie breaker between two equally skilled players. I don't see strategy as a skill in itself. As for the Chess comment, I liken Chess to a SC match where both players are equally skilled, and thus have to use strategy to see who wins. With that said there is no harm for someone like me to learn Chess. I just have a problem with people with inferior mechanics beating someone just because of their tactics (cheese?). And since Chess has no mechanics it's fair game. But to change a video game, something that has by tradition always required muscle memory, to allow some random noob to win just by thinking harder is a huge slap in the face to the guy who actually trains his hands on the keyboard.
This guy nailed it, he really did. And I'd like to add, about the "cheese" strategies. A player with better mechanics can even overcome a "cheese" tactic, and that provides for some of the most entertaining starcraft out there.
Strategy is an important part of SC as well, and provides for many shouts of excitement, but it has to be combined with mechanics or the game will not be any more fun or competitive than other flashy RTS games.
when you watch a pro game, the only times you hear the crowd go nuts is when amazing control is displayed, a blunder in control happens, or intelligent or sneaky tactics are used. people who call mechanics as "mindless" may be right on the surface, but they are missing the point entirely.
|
|
|
On January 24 2009 11:10 BanZu wrote:
Actually, Chess and Starcraft have one big difference. Chess is a game of completely open knowledge whereas Starcraft is a game of hidden knowledge.
This is really, really important. Games where both sides have imperfect knowledge of the other open up more strategies of deception, and encourage drawing conclusions from imperfect data. It's a bit like poker, where you try to draw conclusions about the other guy's cards from imperfect data like his behaviour or his betting patterns. Or, for that matter, like military intelligence, which always consists of spotty knowledge from which a coherent theory of what the other guy is trying to do is put together. This, to me, is one of the big, big defining features of Starcraft.
|
Fun is what gets people into competitive play.
When you read interviews of the OLDER Korean pros - everyone started because it was such a fun game. More recent pros may also have started because they envied other pros - but when SC was released there was no pro scene yet.
Fun must be there to begin with, otherwise people don't start with it, and once they start they will try to get better and better so there needs to be a balance and an open skill ceiling. Additionally, there needs to be tons of other players so that you get games constantly, and the pro scene which slowly manifests itself needs to be visible for other players (through replays, VODs, spectators in games) which then is an influence for them (so that they see how good the best ones are so they can see their goal: to become better than these players are). Another bonus is if the game is well suited for spectators (which SC is): one important thing there is that it's fast, has lots of action, and is well readable (i.e. not confusing). For the spectator, it must be like a Hollywood summer blockbuster superhero action movie: fast, furious, polished, easy to understand and fun.
It also needs to attract lots of people. Because your game might be the best in the world, but you need players who actually play it. I mean if I say I'm good at Nethack no one really cares because no one knows the game (so they can't even tell if that's a good thing or not because they don't know how hard it is to become good at it, and they won't even bother to find out because it has ASCII graphics and a complicated user interface), while if I'd say I'm good at Starcraft there would be much more influence because everyone knows the game and knows that it's quite hard too.
So you need to design your game so that even retards can play it, otherwise you're missing out on a TON of players. Blizzard always does that - their games are incredibly easy to get into, there's almost zero learning required except when you start competing against other players in which case you need to know good builds, strategies, timing and have good mechanics.
Another thing to consider is that a complete newbie playing Fastest Map Possible with 40 APM and Protoss is just as important to the game as a progamer. Because if you simply get rid of all the noobs, you'll end up with a game with about 1000 players tops, and no one would bother to create tournaments for a game with only 1000 players, however skilled they are. There would be no audience, so it would be irrelevant. It would be like Nethack - played by a few nerds who might be extremely good at it, but the rest of the world wouldn't know the game at all or give a shit.
|
Starcraft is an RTS. Chess is a TBS.
The fact that SC is real-time means that the mechanical, physically challenging, monstrous APM side is a feature of the game and genre, and simply can't be removed. Unless both competitors are competeing on a similar mechanical level (real-time), strategy very rarely enters the picture.
Methodical thinking and meticulous planning is why we watch chess; StarCraft's insane micro, positioning and macro are dependant on the stressful and adrenaline fueled real time aspect of the game.
|
I disagree with sheepyd's view. The real time in RTS refers to the concept that you are limited in reaction time. This also has to do with physical finesse, but the grand idea of Real Time Strategy is that you have to react quickly on the mental plane. It is the scouting of build orders and adapt, getting unit composition and position correct, that's where the difference is between RTS and TBS. In chess, unit positioning is everything, but you can take your time to think things through. (well most official matches are with a clock, anyway, but I am generalizing here.)
To people who say that being the best, mechanically, gives you a thrill.. well, imagine the thrill of finally outplaying your opponent with mind tricks, rather than clickerdeclicks? If the physical demands are very low but the strategical depth is great, then as a mechanical man, you might get defeated every time. But when you finally got the knowledge to beat your opponents, there is just as much reward. This has nothing to do with the game being physical or not, it has to do with it being fun and balanced. It is a separate debate altogether, what you desires are for a game as to the balance between physical demand and automation.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On January 23 2009 17:16 SWPIGWANG wrote:
2. What is "fun"
...
I. Consistent Challenge: Challenge is fun. A game must provide some challenge at every phase of the game. This is where many games fails, since the player is bored doing things like executing a mindless BO. It is not about absolute skill requirements to win, but down time in a match where player and watcher attention drifts. The important part is to tune the game so that every phase require attention, is important and has interesting things going on. In other words, importance of time has to be balanced. Never should a game be pointless in the first 5 minutes for only 10 seconds of worthy battle followed by another 5 minutes of dull clean up of someone refusing to gg.
In addition to challenges of control, there needs to be consistent intellectual challenge, over phases of an individual game and the game's lifetime. This comes from Diversity in the game, which results from BALANCE, depth, probabilistic factors and variation between the individual games played (aka maps, settings, etc). The topic is large enough for its own thread.
I have done some thinking about issues like this for my own game project. Here are my thoughts as they relate to SCBW / SC2 / RTS.
One thing about high-level competitive play that makes it less fun -- in ANY genre -- is that the overall strategies tend to converge to one or more optimal strategies. This convergence is unavoidable, and it can lead to very repetitive and uninteresting games in the worst cases. The way to keep the game interesting and non-repetitive (and thus more fun) at this level is to aim to make each match different from the last in spite of this convergence of strategies. The players must be encouraged to use their intelligence and their creativity to adapt to each match's unique circumstances. And the more often they have opportunities to be creative and intelligent, the better.
For this discussion, let us assume that if we make every match unique, then it will entail intelligence and creativity from the players. Obviously this isn't always true: if I ask you to add two numbers, I can make the numbers unique each time, but it doesn't make the task any more interesting because solving it is systematic and mechanical: it's something a computer could easily do. But this issue deserves its own discussion. In any case, intelligence and creativity can only come into play when unique (or rare) situations arise in a match, so that is our starting point.
Moving on, an obvious way to make each match different is to introduce randomness. With some exceptions, this is generally unwanted. So let us assume our game will have NO randomness at all. How else can we make individual matches unique if the players are aiming to do the same optimal strategies every time?
The key lies in player-vs-player interaction. Whenever two players interact on the battle field, the outcome is always different. Sometimes the difference is a handful of HP, or a few zerglings. And sometimes it is much more significant, such as a loss of workers or an important building. In any case, the interactions have to be meaningful enough that they can cause a sort of "butterfly effect", where if things do not go exactly as planned, then the player's build/strategy will drift farther and farther away from their "cookie-cutter" build/strategy. (For example, losing even a few workers early on will noticeably affect the timings of ones build.) Otherwise, the small differences between different outcomes will not affect the players' overall game plans, and the matches will be essentially the same until something meaningful does happen.
Therefore, perhaps we should design the game so that the ideal strategies encourage early, meaningful player-vs-player interaction?
But there is a problem: in the RTS paradigm, the players must ascend a tech tree, and doing so grants them access to a much wider variety of tools, but it requires an initial investment first. Similarly, expanding can also increase their options since they have more income to work with. If player-vs-player interactions are too important, then the players will be unable to invest in teching or expanding, because they will need every last bit of resources to fight with their opponent. In particular, while the players are low on resources, the ability to have meaningful interactions is almost mutually-exclusive with the ability to tech/expand: if a player is free to invest in tech/expansion, then their opponent's units must not be very meaningful since the player can deal with them despite having a significantly weaker army!
Now that we have scratched the surface, we can see that making every match significantly-different right from the start (without relying on randomness) is not a straightforward issue, which helps explain why RTS games seem to have trouble achieving it. Let alone the issue of what kinds of differences will force the players to use their intelligence and creativity to adapt, as opposed to differences that are like changing the values of variables in a mathematical formula -- differences that can be overcome systematically? I'll stop here, since these are deep questions and I do not have the time to dive deeper into them at the moment.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
Clearly, from skimming some of the posts in this topic, there are (at least) two different aspects of SCBW -- and many other games -- that make it fun, as both a player and a spectator.
One is the intelligence and creativity aspect: adapting to the unique, complex situations that arise (and from the spectator's point of view, seeing something different happen each time, and seeing the players make intelligent and creative decisions).
Another is the mechanics aspect: having the physical and mental skills to have high apm, good macro, good micro, and so on (and from the spectator's point of view, seeing mechanical feats that make you stare in awe).
|
On January 24 2009 19:48 Bill307 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 17:16 SWPIGWANG wrote:
2. What is "fun"
...
I. Consistent Challenge: Challenge is fun. A game must provide some challenge at every phase of the game. This is where many games fails, since the player is bored doing things like executing a mindless BO. It is not about absolute skill requirements to win, but down time in a match where player and watcher attention drifts. The important part is to tune the game so that every phase require attention, is important and has interesting things going on. In other words, importance of time has to be balanced. Never should a game be pointless in the first 5 minutes for only 10 seconds of worthy battle followed by another 5 minutes of dull clean up of someone refusing to gg.
In addition to challenges of control, there needs to be consistent intellectual challenge, over phases of an individual game and the game's lifetime. This comes from Diversity in the game, which results from BALANCE, depth, probabilistic factors and variation between the individual games played (aka maps, settings, etc). The topic is large enough for its own thread. I have done some thinking about issues like this for my own game project. Here are my thoughts as they relate to SCBW / SC2 / RTS. One thing about high-level competitive play that makes it less fun -- in ANY genre -- is that the overall strategies tend to converge to one or more optimal strategies. This convergence is unavoidable, and it can lead to very repetitive and uninteresting games in the worst cases. The way to keep the game interesting and non-repetitive (and thus more fun) at this level is to aim to make each match different from the last in spite of this convergence of strategies. The players must be encouraged to use their intelligence and their creativity to adapt to each match's unique circumstances. And the more often they have opportunities to be creative and intelligent, the better. For this discussion, let us assume that if we make every match unique, then it will entail intelligence and creativity from the players. Obviously this isn't always true: if I ask you to add two numbers, I can make the numbers unique each time, but it doesn't make the task any more interesting because solving it is systematic and mechanical: it's something a computer could easily do. But this issue deserves its own discussion. In any case, intelligence and creativity can only come into play when unique (or rare) situations arise in a match, so that is our starting point. Moving on, an obvious way to make each match different is to introduce randomness. With some exceptions, this is generally unwanted. So let us assume our game will have NO randomness at all. How else can we make individual matches unique if the players are aiming to do the same optimal strategies every time? The key lies in player-vs-player interaction. Whenever two players interact on the battle field, the outcome is always different. Sometimes the difference is a handful of HP, or a few zerglings. And sometimes it is much more significant, such as a loss of workers or an important building. In any case, the interactions have to be meaningful enough that they can cause a sort of "butterfly effect", where if things do not go exactly as planned, then the player's build/strategy will drift farther and farther away from their "cookie-cutter" build/strategy. (For example, losing even a few workers early on will noticeably affect the timings of ones build.) Otherwise, the small differences between different outcomes will not affect the players' overall game plans, and the matches will be essentially the same until something meaningful does happen. Therefore, perhaps we should design the game so that the ideal strategies encourage early, meaningful player-vs-player interaction? But there is a problem: in the RTS paradigm, the players must ascend a tech tree, and doing so grants them access to a much wider variety of tools, but it requires an initial investment first. Similarly, expanding can also increase their options since they have more income to work with. If player-vs-player interactions are too important, then the players will be unable to invest in teching or expanding, because they will need every last bit of resources to fight with their opponent. In particular, while the players are low on resources, the ability to have meaningful interactions is almost mutually-exclusive with the ability to tech/expand: if a player is free to invest in tech/expansion, then their opponent's units must not be very meaningful since the player can deal with them despite having a significantly weaker army! Now that we have scratched the surface, we can see that making every match significantly-different right from the start (without relying on randomness) is not a straightforward issue, which helps explain why RTS games seem to have trouble achieving it. Let alone the issue of what kinds of differences will force the players to use their intelligence and creativity to adapt, as opposed to differences that are like changing the values of variables in a mathematical formula -- differences that can be overcome systematically? I'll stop here, since these are deep questions and I do not have the time to dive deeper into them at the moment.
You really hit the nail on the head and furthermore I want to extend on why this makes sense in a practical application. As we all know anyone who picks up starcraft nowadays will watch replays, copy build orders, and repeat. There's no creativity, no room for error, you do what you see and nothing more. On the other hand, when Age of Empires 3 came out there wasn't anything new for RTS at the time, sc and wc3 had been out for a while already and so it was pretty cool.
Needless to say I was able to come up with my own strategies and really out think people, sure perhaps some people had lesser mechanics and sure maybe a lot of people just sucked, but the bottom line is that it was so much fun to come up with new and unique strategies. I think this is what Blizzard is going to achieve by 1.) making the battlefield more dynamic and not so typical and 2.) coming out with multiple expansions(new units will cause people to come up with new strategies if the units aren't under powered, period.)
"...to allow some random noob to win just by thinking harder..."
I hope you realize how completely contradictory this statement is. Its like anything, some people can win with brains, some can win with brawn. You're saying because you can kick a bag harder that you're supposed to automatically win even though he ran circles around you mentally? Sorry, but that's just the wrong thing to say, gaming is what...99% mental? Pressing a key isn't much physical exertion compared to the brain power required.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On January 24 2009 05:51 MuR)Ernu wrote:
Comparing chess and starcraft is just silly. Why not compare chess and soccer too? They both need some strategy right?
No, chess= 100% mindgame.
Starcraft= Mindgame/Physical. Depending on your playstyle the procentages change. Some people are like 80% strategy and 20% mechanics, etc.
It's a completely different thing. Starcraft is basically a physical sport in a way, but still strategic. Actually videogames go in their own category in sports, nothing is really similar.
And if you make an RTS without the physical side, it most likely will suck. It's not just all that fun imo.
It's funny that you're implying Chess is pure strategy, because that's pure nonsense.
Chess is 100% mental tasks, true, but those tasks are, like in SCBW, split between mechanics and strategy. Some examples of Chess mechanics:
- Remembering opening books.
- Keeping track of how many pieces attack and defend each square.
- Being able to visualize and remember a large number of different positions in ones head while simultaneously performing other mental tasks with these positions.
In Chess, one can easily beat an opponent with weaker mechanics even if the opponent has much better strategical thinking. The extreme case is a computer, which has really only one strategy, "play the best move", yet with sufficient memory and processing power (and smart algorithms, and a strong opening book) can defeat even the most brilliant human.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
By the way, imo it's easy to see that StarCraft, at a high competitive level, is 99% memory and mechanics.
Why? Because (as far as I've heard) a progamer's training schedule consists entirely of practice time.
Practice (with the addition of proper sleep) is the one and only way to improve your memory and mechanics skills. Strategy, on the other hand, requires not only practice, but also time spent thinking about the game outside of the game. Improving your strategy requires reflection, and discussion with your friends. If you do not spend time thinking about strategy, then your strategical thinking will never improve: all you will ever know is that strategy A performed better than strategy B in your practice games.
Now I'm sure progamers (at least some of them) will think about and talk about strategy during their spare time. But the fact that their schedules (as far as I know) don't explicitly set time aside for strategic discussion is imo a very strong indicator that having a good strategic mind at that level is completely unnecessary.
|
On January 24 2009 20:18 Bill307 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2009 05:51 MuR)Ernu wrote:
Comparing chess and starcraft is just silly. Why not compare chess and soccer too? They both need some strategy right?
No, chess= 100% mindgame.
Starcraft= Mindgame/Physical. Depending on your playstyle the procentages change. Some people are like 80% strategy and 20% mechanics, etc.
It's a completely different thing. Starcraft is basically a physical sport in a way, but still strategic. Actually videogames go in their own category in sports, nothing is really similar.
And if you make an RTS without the physical side, it most likely will suck. It's not just all that fun imo. It's funny that you're implying Chess is pure strategy, because that's pure nonsense. Chess is 100% mental tasks, true, but those tasks are, like in SCBW, split between mechanics and strategy. Some examples of Chess mechanics: - Remembering opening books. - Keeping track of how many pieces attack and defend each square. - Being able to visualize and remember a large number of different positions in ones head while simultaneously performing other mental tasks with these positions. In Chess, one can easily beat an opponent with weaker mechanics even if the opponent has much better strategical thinking. The extreme case is a computer, which has really only one strategy, "play the best move", yet with sufficient memory and processing power (and smart algorithms, and a strong opening book) can defeat even the most brilliant human.
Hmm, this is sort of getting into the issue of what actually counts as "strategy". After all, how is "play the best move" not the ideal strategy?
|
On January 24 2009 05:51 MuR)Ernu wrote:
Comparing chess and starcraft is just silly. Why not compare chess and soccer too? They both need some strategy right?
No, chess= 100% mindgame.
Starcraft= Mindgame/Physical. Depending on your playstyle the procentages change. Some people are like 80% strategy and 20% mechanics, etc.
It's a completely different thing. Starcraft is basically a physical sport in a way, but still strategic. Actually videogames go in their own category in sports, nothing is really similar.
And if you make an RTS without the physical side, it most likely will suck. It's not just all that fun imo.
Also, sc2 will probably still be "hard" and still has some of the physical aspect. But why play it when there is a lot better game around?
From what i have seen i like SC more.
These things i don't like about sC2:
-3d graphics (not really all that important but i like 2d more).
- MBS, automine, infinite unit selection, autocast, uber unit AI. (more like the fact they
made it easier.)
*Also the fact that they easified it by making macro too easy, and then adding stupid shit like the gas mechaninc and that dark pylon stuff.
- The fact that it will be "complete" only after like 4years(the expansions and patching).
Now some of you might think its fine but i don't.
Interesting. So if Starcraft 2's first part came out, you would rather play another game, perhaps even its predecessor? Well what if Blizzard started changing the game to react to gamers' disgust at it which would be reflected in forums and sales? Would you come back? The game isn't going to be perfect the first time around. Very few engineering innovations are when they hit the market after testing, similar to game design.
Perhaps the alpha testers didn't think mbs was bad and didn't write about it, so now us TLers have a comic contest to win to get Blizzard to change it in the beta.
|
On January 24 2009 10:45 NatsuTerran wrote:
to allow some random noob to win just by thinking harder is a huge slap in the face to the guy who actually trains his hands on the keyboard.
Thing is, to a lot of players, it is the exact opposite. It is equally a huge slap in the face to someone who put in countless hours trying to come up with the best possible builds, counters, timings, army positions and game plan, to lose to a mechanical player who has zero strategical knowledge. In it's core an RTS is a strategy game and strategy should prevale over mechanics.
A lot of RTS fans think that mechanics should be the tie-breaking aspect incase two players have similar strategical prowess, and not the other way around.
While we may not agree with the above-mentioned players, reality dictates that Blizzard must keep their wishes in mind when creating Starcraft 2.
|
By the way, the physical side of starcraft is mostly muscle memory, and reflexes. You are supposed to be able to do the BO, micro and macro without thinking about it. If you can't do that, you are not able to play really, because you would be too slow.
Its sort of like playing piano for example, you need to have every note in your muscle memory, so you can play it without thinking too much.
And when you are VERY good, that you can find any note at any moment, you can start to improvise and play songs quickly by ear.
Actually martial arts are by a large part mental too. You need to know how you do the techniques, nad you have to be able to read your opponent.
And those who are good mechanically do play somewhat strategic too. Or more like tactically.
You need to know how to micro, how to position units and stuff.
Nobody wins with "pure" mechanics really.
|
In some sense, the brain is a muscle in the sense if you train it, it gets better at a task. Except for a very small group of tasks that require communication, most things the brain is capable of lies outside the consciousness. For fast real time games, strategy is prep one does before the game, as strategic thinking is far to slow. One plays test games and cross reference the data, find something works and practice the hell out of it so it become reflex. Consider speed chess: It is decided by heuristic pattern recognition that comes from training in normal games.
Well, pretty much everyone intelligent is capable of reasoning and strategy. What differentiate good and bad players is memory of game events after all....
-----------------------
One can even say that strategic thinking can be divorced from the player. Someone generate the table of solutions (by this own strategic thinking, statistical or mechanical mathematic brute force or something else) and give it to the players to memorize. Why bother learning strategy when it can be outsourced to the couch?
Just look at the "game theory" school of poker playing comes from memorizing a ton of computer tables.
Perhaps the increasing in computing power would cause a collapse of strategy as we know it as we give it a bit more time. Massive start and end game tables for chess is already around and the secret to the computer's strength....
|
On January 24 2009 10:45 NatsuTerran wrote:
to allow some random noob to win just by thinking harder is a huge slap in the face to the guy who actually trains his hands on the keyboard.
Wow. I wonder if I should take this quote around the RTS world and both for the lulz and to illustrate how strange the cross section of RTS players have grown. The irony is just a bit too much. (or is that really a troll?)
I don't mind a mechanical game and I spend a bit of time playing stepmania but the genre we are discussing is Real-Time Strategy. What this means for a number of players is something like Turn Based Strategy but with more synchronized explosions.......
Just how far have the genre went to become the playground of twitch players?...
|
On January 25 2009 01:45 SWPIGWANG wrote:
In some sense, the brain is a muscle in the sense if you train it, it gets better at a task. Except for a very small group of tasks that require communication, most things the brain is capable of lies outside the consciousness. For fast real time games, strategy is prep one does before the game, as strategic thinking is far to slow. One plays test games and cross reference the data, find something works and practice the hell out of it so it become reflex. Consider speed chess: It is decided by heuristic pattern recognition that comes from training in normal games.
Well, pretty much everyone intelligent is capable of reasoning and strategy. What differentiate good and bad players is memory of game events after all....
-----------------------
One can even say that strategic thinking can be divorced from the player. Someone generate the table of solutions (by this own strategic thinking, statistical or mechanical mathematic brute force or something else) and give it to the players to memorize. Why bother learning strategy when it can be outsourced to the couch?
Just look at the "game theory" school of poker playing comes from memorizing a ton of computer tables.
Perhaps the increasing in computing power would cause a collapse of strategy as we know it as we give it a bit more time. Massive start and end game tables for chess is already around and the secret to the computer's strength....
Play the opening like a book, the middle game like a magician, and the endgame like a machine.
Famous quote from Rudolf Spielmann, a chess writer.
Memory is used at the start when both players have limited and explored options - in SC:BW it´s called build orders. The endgame as well, it´s just blowing up buildings - usually the looser recognizes that and surrenders (how many pro-games end in "GG" rather than a "real" win?)
The "fun" part in Strategy games is when its NOT computable, when creativity, intution and experience are the deciding factors.
Again:
On January 25 2009 01:45 SWPIGWANG wrote:
Massive start and end game tables for chess is already around and the secret to the computer's strength
Well, what are computers good in? Memorization and calculations, ergo the booring parts.
Blizzard already shorted the unfun starting phase when they increased peonnumbers to 6.
TL:DR
When we talk about Strategy we want to put emphatis on the aspect that a computer would be bad in because only then it´s "fun" Strategy (creativity, intution and experience) instead of looking up Spreadsheets.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On January 25 2009 01:45 SWPIGWANG wrote:
For fast real time games, strategy is prep one does before the game, as strategic thinking is far to slow. One plays test games and cross reference the data, find something works and practice the hell out of it so it become reflex. Consider speed chess: It is decided by heuristic pattern recognition that comes from training in normal games.
Well, pretty much everyone intelligent is capable of reasoning and strategy. What differentiate good and bad players is memory of game events after all....
-----------------------
One can even say that strategic thinking can be divorced from the player. Someone generate the table of solutions (by this own strategic thinking, statistical or mechanical mathematic brute force or something else) and give it to the players to memorize. Why bother learning strategy when it can be outsourced to the couch?
I have to disagree. There is a large gap between someone who can think on their feet and someone who can't. This means both forming strategies and playing "mind-games", i.e. misleading your opponent or leading them into a trap.
IMO most SCBW players are TERRIBLE at these things. I believe this is because in the ability to improvise strategies and mind-games in the middle of a game is not as rewarding as simple mechanics and memorization. In fact, most players probably benefit a lot more from spending all their time doing mechanics rather than actually thinking about what they are doing (myself included).
This doesn't mean that strategy in general can be completely removed from the middle of any game, nor that "everyone intelligent is capable of reasoning and strategy". It only looks this way when you narrow your sights on SCBW.
|
On January 24 2009 04:46 Amarxist wrote:
When people argue for the physical aspects of the game (which I can understand, it is impressive to see 500 APM, and it is as much a part of the game as everything else virtual), I can only think of one thing. I mean it really drags in my head and i'm not convinced that a game needs to have a physical dexterity barrier for it to be played.
When you think about it, there's game, yes a game, a game just like Starcraft. With a rich history dating to 500 years past, and even further then that. They call it the King's Game, it requires no physical dexterity what-so-ever (a paralyzed man could play this game). It is and it's players have been revered throughout the world for their prowess in it.
What game is it? Chess
It's a strategy game just like Starcraft, although it's turn based rather then real time. But for those who say that a game would lack depth, challenge, longevity, competitiveness and whatever else. Do you really think that's true? Chess has been around for 500 years and much longer then that through it's predecessors. It's a pure mind game, no physical prowess required to execute even the most adept moves.
I understand that Chess may not be the game for some people, but don't downplay another game for not being the game YOU want it to be.
Memorizing openings in Chess is far more mundane than any mundane aspects in Starcraft.
|
On January 25 2009 03:51 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2009 04:46 Amarxist wrote:
When people argue for the physical aspects of the game (which I can understand, it is impressive to see 500 APM, and it is as much a part of the game as everything else virtual), I can only think of one thing. I mean it really drags in my head and i'm not convinced that a game needs to have a physical dexterity barrier for it to be played.
When you think about it, there's game, yes a game, a game just like Starcraft. With a rich history dating to 500 years past, and even further then that. They call it the King's Game, it requires no physical dexterity what-so-ever (a paralyzed man could play this game). It is and it's players have been revered throughout the world for their prowess in it.
What game is it? Chess
It's a strategy game just like Starcraft, although it's turn based rather then real time. But for those who say that a game would lack depth, challenge, longevity, competitiveness and whatever else. Do you really think that's true? Chess has been around for 500 years and much longer then that through it's predecessors. It's a pure mind game, no physical prowess required to execute even the most adept moves.
I understand that Chess may not be the game for some people, but don't downplay another game for not being the game YOU want it to be.
Memorizing openings in Chess is far more mundane than any mundane aspects in Starcraft.
I agree, even though its interesting if you think about it really deep and start to understand the openings. But memorizing them is far more mundane than memorizing BO's and tactics in sc =D
|
I want to pose a question: would allowing MBS and auto-mining allow for more strategical, and thought out plays, and by extension more "fun" in Starcraft 2?
MBS and auto-mine would decrease the mechanical aspect of SC2 allowing players to explore other aspects of the game including thinking on their feet.
|
Well the thing about this discussion is that a lot of people seem to have their own distinct view on what strategy is. From what I've seen of many players, they seem to define strategy as something you come up with in the middle of the battle. Whenever somebody mentions coming up with a strategy before/after the battle, they simply list them as mechanics or memorization. Like build orders for example.
Personally, I don't think that's really fair because thinking up strategy ahead of time is 99% of what strategy actually is. You never see a Chess player come into a game with no strategy planned ahead. You never see a war general go into a battle with no strategy planned ahead. These people always have hundreds, if not thousands, of strategies thought up and memorized before the battle actually begins. Even today there are thousands of documents of war strategies that are memorized by the military.
The truth of the matter is that strategy isn't as fancy or gorgeous as we think it is. Strategy is nothing more than an overall plan that's often vague. Most plans are always going to boil down to "take down this target", "flank here", or "strike from here". People keep trying to separate strategy from mechanics, but the truth is that strategy pretty much IS mechanics. If you don't have a hundred plans or "build orders" memorized ahead of time, you're going to get steamrolled by somebody who has.
Because strategies are often vague, the tactics are the specifics. "Attack this position" is the strategy. "Attack using grenades and proper formation" are the tactics. It's the tactics that ultimately make watching strategy exciting. It's the tactics that make strategy fun. Starcraft would have never become as popular as it is without the huge tactical depth it has. Unfortunately for some reason, people seem to think that tactics no longer count as strategy, which I think is baffling because strategies often fall apart without the tactics/mechanics to support them. They aren't separate beings, they go hand in hand. It seems that strategy gamers today are on this "anti-mechanics" crusade, where they constantly try to remove as much tactical depth as possible. However, these people don't realize that tactics are the co-joined twin of strategy. Both are mechanical in nature, and trying to remove one only weakens both.
There's a reason why Starcraft is seen as the number one RTS. Future RTS games should learn from Starcraft instead of try to defy it. And I think that ALL gamers should open their eyes and realize that strategy is much more mechanical than we might think.
|
This is the smartest thing anyone has ever said ever.
|
On January 25 2009 06:15 Spawkuring wrote:
Because strategies are often vague, the tactics are the specifics. "Attack this position" is the strategy. "Attack using grenades and proper formation" are the tactics. It's the tactics that ultimately make watching strategy exciting. It's the tactics that make strategy fun. Starcraft would have never become as popular as it is without the huge tactical depth it has. Unfortunately for some reason, people seem to think that tactics no longer count as strategy, which I think is baffling because strategies often fall apart without the tactics/mechanics to support them. They aren't separate beings, they go hand in hand. It seems that strategy gamers today are on this "anti-mechanics" crusade, where they constantly try to remove as much tactical depth as possible. However, these people don't realize that tactics are the co-joined twin of strategy. Both are mechanical in nature, and trying to remove one only weakens both.
There's a reason why Starcraft is seen as the number one RTS. Future RTS games should learn from Starcraft instead of try to defy it. And I think that ALL gamers should open their eyes and realize that strategy is much more mechanical than we might think.
Well if you add in MBS and auto-mine wouldn't you create more opportunities to show off tactics? Right now the archaic interface of Starcraft drains attention from the players that they could have other wise used to properly position their army. I don't see how the "anti-mechanics crusade" you described would lower the tactics in Starcraft.
|
Wow smart post, really sums it up well.
This is the reason why viewers find the new generation gamers boring, because they focus mainly on mechanics/strategy rather than tactics. In a sense, it's just 1a2a3a rather than the BoxeR-like Pimpest Plays moves that some players pull off.
|
Its true that tactics is the bread and butter of Starcraft: the entire game has its very foundation built up on it. Boxer made his claim to frame from his very tactical plays like the his dropship and marine play. It is perfectly executed flanks or well positioned psi storms that drives the crowd into a frenzy.
Strategy in the sense of build orders and obscure timings (3base 135 supply push? why this time as opposed to 150 or 200?) is generally not well understood.
I don't think there is really a push against tactics in the traditional sense. It is just forgotten in all the tensions dragging all over the place and forgotten.
Tactical depth is also poor understood nor is there a semi-complete framework for discussing them being raised here. People keep talking about how 4d5d6d7d8d9p0p1a2a3a4z5z6z7z8z9p0p1a2a3a is the essence of Starcraft of something, as if keyboard drills is the deepest, best game there is and ever will be.
There is a large gap between someone who can think on their feet and someone who can't.
Memory is a far faster mental function than imagination. It is extremely hard to compute the effectiveness of a strategy or an idea which may or may not work. For most players, collecting lots of information all over the place and learning from mistakes is sufficient, coming up with original ones not so much.
There is no patent laws about strategy, and anyone with a strong memory can memorize the best strategies ever existed and combine it with strong mechanics one ends up with a strong, if not conventional player.
Only in games where the number of competitive game states is so utterly immense that memorization fails utterly (eg. Go) that heuristics and "strategy" becomes important. Even than, large problems gets broken down into subproblems of tactics and pattern matching which accounts for a lot of a player's strength, and strategy comes from long mental conditioning and training as opposed to reasoning in the traditional sense. Those games are also not that great as a spectator sport since casuals wouldn't understand a thing in all that craziness.
Reasoning is often what people want to do to feel like they are using strategy, but reasoning is probably the slowest brain function with the smallest memory space. (one can remember, what, 7 items at once in short term memory compared to the unknown depth of the long term one)
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 25 2009 04:44 Pendragon wrote:
MBS and auto-mine would decrease the mechanical aspect of SC2 allowing players to explore other aspects of the game including thinking on their feet.
IMO this is a bad mentality. I don't think that mechanics and strategy have to be mutually exclusive. Bad mechanics limit the effectiveness of some strategies (e.g. Sair/Reaver is a poor option if your multitasking and reaver control are poor), but in some ways, that makes advancement in the game interesting. If all strategies are "open" to a player from when they start playing, it seems less "exciting" to get better. If the optimal builds for D-level play are also the optimal builds at progamer level, then it reduces creativity. "Playing at your level" diversifies what different players do, because they can tailor their strategies to their level of mechanical skill. Arguably, it might even increase the amount of "thinking-on-your-feet" because the proper response in a given situation isn't going to be pulling out a play that some progamer did in a similar scenario when its not possible for you to execute such a move with your level of mechanics.
OP: tl;dr, but skimmed a bit. Most of it seems good, though I think it might be easier to manage if some of the points had been split across several threads. Will comment more later.
II. Control: Games are different from other medium in the control it provide. Predictable, effective, and responsive controls that gets better with practice is generally desirable. (unless contradicted by other requirements) Things like stupid dragoons that run circles around a ramp or "too smart" Company of Heros snipers that dives into cover outside control of players violate this as it is more random than anything. It is just pleasant to control things, may it be cars, planes or 10 hatchery and mutalisks. Many games are built on this principle alone.
Yes. I agree entirely with this. The question is, what level is adequate, and what is doing too much for the player? Is a force that flanks when given a straight attack-move command considered doing too much (IMO, yes, since its doing more than the player asked, but thats up to some discussion)?
Looking at topics in isolation (micro/macro/specific unit) is not so helpful as, perhaps, looking at an APM selection chart and the number of branch points in strategy guides. Thinking about whether something can be made hard is pointless. It is probably better to think in terms of phases and diversity, so if a phase of a game is too boring, you make that part more challenging. If people keep on doing something to the point of boredom, you give them something else to do. The inverse can also happen, for example if a game element is too hard and too decisive resulting in lessened importance for other parts of the game, you nerf its importance and difficulty so other parts of the game is not overshadowed.
This gets a bit hard to judge though, as you move through the development of a game, because what one person considers fun, others might consider boring. Just look how different genres of games, all popular in their own right, have evolved. Judging what is "boring" and worth changing is a hard thing to do. If you change things for one group, you'll inevitably alienate another.
Side notes: I don't think, however, the above necessarily supports macro since it breaks the theme badly in requiring dumb baby sitting nor is the mechanic pleasurable to control in itself for most people and does not grow intellectually over time. Its probably better to look for diversity and pressure from other paths, like adding harass units during lulls in fighting.
This comment was a bit unnecessary, and might spoil the writeup for some readers. I'll just say in short that I think to generalize macro as a whole to be "dumb baby sitting" is jumping to conclusions too quickly. Certain macro mechanics are mindless and repetitive, but that does not exclude the possibility of making unit production, economic management, and base management into tasks that are interesting, strategic, and ones that will grow with time. I think that straight automation such as MBS and automining is the lazy way out of solving a problem that could be potentially interesting and have strong positive effects on the RTS genre.
On January 25 2009 08:09 SWPIGWANG wrote:
Memory is a far faster mental function than imagination. It is extremely hard to compute the effectiveness of a strategy or an idea which may or may not work. For most players, collecting lots of information all over the place and learning from mistakes is sufficient, coming up with original ones not so much.
There is no patent laws about strategy, and anyone with a strong memory can memorize the best strategies ever existed and combine it with strong mechanics one ends up with a strong, if not conventional player.
Only in games where the number of competitive game states is so utterly immense that memorization fails utterly (eg. Go) that heuristics and "strategy" becomes important. Even than, large problems gets broken down into subproblems of tactics and pattern matching which accounts for a lot of a player's strength, and strategy comes from long mental conditioning and training as opposed to reasoning in the traditional sense. Those games are also not that great as a spectator sport since casuals wouldn't understand a thing in all that craziness.
Reasoning is often what people want to do to feel like they are using strategy, but reasoning is probably the slowest brain function with the smallest memory space. (one can remember, what, 7 items at once in short term memory compared to the unknown depth of the long term one)
I dunno what to say, other than "I wholeheartedly agree."
|
By TheYangoI don't think that mechanics and strategy have to be mutually exclusive. Bad mechanics limit the effectiveness of some strategies (e.g. Sair/Reaver is a poor option if your multitasking and reaver control are poor)
Mechanics and strategy are not exclusive, they are tightly related.
However, macro is not a deep or photogenic mechanic nor does it result in highly tactical plays (that the audience can actually see), just fairly abstract results where one ends up with more units.
There are dozens and more tricks and details with micro and battles what the audience watch and understand. Details from a mine, a firebat placement, a reaver shot or a wraith move command can be highly scrutinized and combined into epic battles that is not replicated but understood.
Macro, as the way it is, is terribly invisible. Aside from idle workers, production efficiency is very poorly understood as unit queues are invisible so we don't know if the 100 minerals left is the result of a 1.1 average queue or a 4 unit long queue. There is fully visible measure of "buffer money" that differentiate good and bad players because of that. Its a block box and that is no good at all. We can't tell anything out of macro, we can't see if there is some clever streamlined trick that the player use to time production rounds perfectly, or whether it is just checking a lot or its just some sort of natural clockwork instinct.
If there are different styles and detail of macro other than "lots of units" (as opposed to their tactical, micro and combat game, like "good at M&M control but bad against Vessel snipes", or "Can control many drops at once to create chaos) than it would be an interesting mechanic.
---
There may be a lot of depth and diversity within the macro world, but the audience would never know....that is bad
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 25 2009 09:06 SWPIGWANG wrote:
There may be a lot of depth and diversity within the macro world, but the audience would never know....that is bad
Which is why I think striving to make macro more visible, rather than simply automating it, and moving it out of the realm of being a player skill, is more appropriate.
|
On January 25 2009 09:12 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2009 09:06 SWPIGWANG wrote:
There may be a lot of depth and diversity within the macro world, but the audience would never know....that is bad Which is why I think striving to make macro more visible, rather than simply automating it, and moving it out of the realm of being a player skill, is more appropriate.
You are contradicting yourself without even realizing it. Think about what ACTUALLY is being automated and what isn´t.
Let´s consider "Maximising Mineral income" a skill.
Now, you´d propably say that Automine (beginn harvesting immeadiately if the Rallypoint is set on Minerals) removes it as a skill.
But what about timing, optimal peon numbers, expansions, maynarding, building...?
The simple fact that they can automise something so easily means it wasn´t actually that good of a "skill" in the first place.
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 25 2009 09:53 Unentschieden wrote:
You are contradicting yourself without even realizing it. Think about what ACTUALLY is being automated and what isn´t.
Let´s consider "Maximising Mineral income" a skill.
Now, you´d propably say that Automine (beginn harvesting immeadiately if the Rallypoint is set on Minerals) removes it as a skill.
But what about timing, optimal peon numbers, expansions, maynarding, building...?
The simple fact that they can automise something so easily means it wasn´t actually that good of a "skill" in the first place.
Perhaps I should be more clear:
I'm not against automining and MBS if there's a suitable replacement. I believe I've said this in other threads. However, Blizzard has failed to show any suitable replacements (while this forum has proceeded to brainstorm plenty). This is what I'm getting at. Straight simplification of macro is not an acceptable solution. Its up to debate whether having a bad mechanic is better than having no mechanic at all, but I think we can all agree that having a good mechanic replace a bad mechanic is the best option.
|
I completely agree with the above. We need a replacement that not only preserves the valuable skillsets those UI changes remove or marginalize but also adds tons of new depth on top of that.
I think Blizzard are on the right track this time. With help of the SCLegacy contest we may actually turn SC2 into something bigger than BW. I'm optimistic. ^_______^
|
On January 24 2009 00:12 Amber[LighT] wrote:
To be honest calling it 'mindless' means that it's unimportant and does not benefit you at all and is a waste of time.
mindless
adj.
requiring little mental effort; "mindless tasks"
I believe it falls into this category. Can we drop it?
|
On January 25 2009 20:02 Lamentations wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2009 00:12 Amber[LighT] wrote:
To be honest calling it 'mindless' means that it's unimportant and does not benefit you at all and is a waste of time. mindless adj. requiring little mental effort; "mindless tasks" I believe it falls into this category. Can we drop it?
What Amber[LighT] describes is "pointless", not mindless. For example you might set up your base to look asteatecly pleasing. Might not be mindless but is certainly pointless.
Ideally any task that is mindless would also be pointless and vice versa. At least in my understanding of the RTS Genre.
|
What about two pro's playing Chess? The entire game is a series of mindless actions. They are hardly really thinking, just recalling from their thousands of practice games what works and what doesn't. The truth is strategy does not exist at a high level of play in any game. Optimal strategies are found and become commonplace to all advocates. They are practiced to death until it is apparent which decision is best in any given situation. RTS genre for me has always revolved around speed. If you really can't stand mechanical tasks you would be better off finding a turn-based video game.
|
On January 26 2009 01:51 NatsuTerran wrote:
What about two pro's playing Chess? The entire game is a series of mindless actions. They are hardly really thinking, just recalling from their thousands of practice games what works and what doesn't. The truth is strategy does not exist at a high level of play in any game. Optimal strategies are found and become commonplace to all advocates. They are practiced to death until it is apparent which decision is best in any given situation. RTS genre for me has always revolved around speed. If you really can't stand mechanical tasks you would be better off finding a turn-based video game.
I think that's the way to put it, I agree absolutely.
If you really have to think in every game about strategic decisions it means you are a low level player. Of course there are some games (nowadays very rarely because of the nearly 100% examination of the game) where you have to just freestyle to adapt to the opponents gameplay. But in 99% of all games you just don't have to and so you can't perform strategically "outstanding" play, nearly everything has been done before.
I really don't think that this is some "Strategy vs. Mechanics"-debate, the ones who always come up with things like that are just playing the wrong genre of games. I am NOT implying you are noob or sth like that.
|
On January 26 2009 01:51 NatsuTerran wrote:
What about two pro's playing Chess? The entire game is a series of mindless actions. They are hardly really thinking, just recalling from their thousands of practice games what works and what doesn't. The truth is strategy does not exist at a high level of play in any game. Optimal strategies are found and become commonplace to all advocates. They are practiced to death until it is apparent which decision is best in any given situation. RTS genre for me has always revolved around speed. If you really can't stand mechanical tasks you would be better off finding a turn-based video game.
Play the opening like a book, the middle game like a magician, and the endgame like a machine.
Famous quote from Rudolf Spielmann, a chess writer.
Memorization, as you are arguing only really works in the opening since there is "only" a limited range of valid moves - that you can look up and prepare. In SC:BW it´s called build order.
The endgame as well, once enough figures are removed the Players action is so much reduced that the gamesolution is inevitable - these can be practiced with "Chess Puzzles" - you can´t exactly look them up/memorize these but solve them via applying patterns - like a robot. In SC:BW we usually see a "GG" from the (soon to be) looser in that situation.
Maybe "just recalling from their thousands of practice games what works and what doesn't." works in SC:BW because there are not as many possible variations to the strategic situation, even though it´s a game of imperfect information. That would mean that SC:BW is stagnant, as you are arguing.
Strategy gets interesting in the middle game for any "Strategy game". In chess you can´t memorize every strategical situation and it´s solution - even todays supercomputers are not able to do that or they would be unbeatable.
Strategic "Skill" is less pereparing known situations but also reacting to unknown/unexpected ones.
Even, actually especially, Pros have to be able to adapt their strategy on the fly because in a good strategy game the number of possible situations exceeds the human capability to memorize them. That is what we would call a "deep" game.
On January 26 2009 02:54 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
But in 99% of all games you just don't have to and so you can't perform strategically "outstanding" play, nearly everything has been done before.
Then 99% of all games simply aren´t strategic. Maybe SC:BW is one of these. But SC2 should try to be in the 1% that is so diverse that players can´t simply "solve" strategy by pure memorization.
|
Strategy gets interesting in the middle game for any "Strategy game". In chess you can´t memorize every strategical situation and it´s solution - even todays supercomputers are not able to do that or they would be unbeatable.
Strategic "Skill" is less pereparing known situations but also reacting to unknown/unexpected ones.
I'd say the last sentence goes hand in hand with memorization. It isn't an absolute, but if you're a Chess grandmaster, chances are you've been in any given situation so that you know how to react. I refuse to believe Chess puts forth a different strategy you haven't encountered before (to a high level player) a good amount of times in late games. The bottom line is it is still their experience that allows them to counter.
Then 99% of all games simply aren´t strategic. Maybe SC:BW is one of these. But SC2 should try to be in the 1% that is so diverse that players can´t simply "solve" strategy by pure memorization.
Why? That kind of game would suck. Who wants to spend time playing a game they can't even get better at by practicing?
|
On January 26 2009 04:54 Unentschieden wrote:
Then 99% of all games simply aren´t strategic. Maybe SC:BW is one of these. But SC2 should try to be in the 1% that is so diverse that players can´t simply "solve" strategy by pure memorization.
The thing about this argument is that these situations are extremely rare in any strategy game. You can never truly get rid of memorization, and high level play will always turn into mostly memorization over time. That's why I feel that the whole "anti-mechanics/memorization" crusade by some gamers is ultimately fruitless.
The only two ways you can get rid of memorization is either by making the game ridiculously complex or by introducing luck into the game. Unfortunately, the former is only delaying the inevitable, and the latter is bad for obvious reasons.
I think SWPIGWANG said it best when he mentioned that "There are no patent laws on strategy". There is nothing inherently special about strategy because no matter how original or unique it is, any person with enough free time can analyze and memorize it within minutes. An effective strategy is effective regardless if the person using it is a genius or a Joe schmoe reading a strategy guide. That's why I mentioned how it's really execution and tactics that makes gamers stand out. Anybody can memorize a strategy, but not everybody can execute it with the proper timing and strength.
|
Then how come Chess works? It has NO element of Luck and the Rules are certainly much less complex than any RTS.
The secret are dynamic strategic situations. "An effective strategy is effective regardless if the person using it is a genius or a Joe schmoe reading a strategy guide." you say. Not exactly. Imagine as Strategy: Build a lot of Lurkers. Is that a good strategy?
Depends - Is the enemy building Marines or Battlecruisers?
Players have to adapt to changing situations - that is the skill. What if the Terran first got lots of Marines but switches later? What if you don´t even notice because you don´t stumble on the Spaceports?
Remember, unlike a Gameplan that you can carefully prepare that the changing Situations limited knowledge about said Situation and time pressure (and everyones beloved multitasking) make finding the right solution a lot harder than "today I´m going to use Siege Tanks and Goliaths".
|
Yeah a game needs fun and skill starcraft has both which is why its so damn good.
|
On January 26 2009 04:54 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2009 02:54 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
But in 99% of all games you just don't have to and so you can't perform strategically "outstanding" play, nearly everything has been done before. Then 99% of all games simply aren´t strategic. Maybe SC:BW is one of these. But SC2 should try to be in the 1% that is so diverse that players can´t simply "solve" strategy by pure memorization.
You are vastly underestimating exactly how complex a game would have to be to make this happen. Even Chess is often reduced to simply knowing the optimal move in a given situation at the very highest levels. And what doesn't come up with your chess example is the nearly impossible task of balancing such a complex game with 3 races; any option being more useful than the others in any matchup instantly removes many of the other options from consideration. In fact, I'd be amazed if anyone could accomplish what you're suggesting in a real-time game even with just one match-up.
On January 26 2009 07:55 Unentschieden wrote:
...and the Rules are certainly much less complex than any RTS.
The number of significantly different game states that'll come up in real play is much higher.
|
Since when is building unit A to counter unit B a strategy? It's common sense.
But man, we sure seem to want polar opposite games. For example, one of the only things I can't stand about SC is losing to a gay Zerg's tech switch. Hell, even if I scout it and react accordingly, it just seems like such a meaningless skill to me. I mean, even some casual noob friend who's watching over your shoulder could see the scan show a spire and he'll be like "lol better get some turrets."
|
On January 26 2009 10:05 armed_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2009 07:55 Unentschieden wrote:
...and the Rules are certainly much less complex than any RTS. The number of significantly different game states that'll come up in real play is much higher.
Good that you realize that, that was the message. In chess there are many more different gamestates despite:
Mirrored "factions"
Absolute knowledge of gamestate.
Turn Based.
No resource system.
No production system.
etc...
So why wouldn´t SC2 be able to have strategic depht?
On January 26 2009 10:11 NatsuTerran wrote:
Since when is building unit A to counter unit B a strategy? It's common sense.
Where did that come from? Where was anyone talking about THAT?
|
From Chobotron's interview article with July =P
Advice for players who want to be ProGamers?
I really wanna say to progamer cadidates, "Don't be a progamer, its so hard more than you imagine"
|
Well... in starcraft, 4 different people who use the same strategy (bo and overall unit combinations etc for example) will do it differently, they have different styles, different level of multitasking, different level/style of micro and stuff.
My point is, that you can do the same strategy, but its effectiveness depends on the players skills (opponents too).
Starcraft is not 100% strategy, nor is it 100% mechanics... (Mechanics include micro tactics btw imo).
Chess is basically 100% strategy. Even though you might win people just by memorizing stuff. (but you really need to understand them too).
think about it, if starcraft had no mechanics, who would play it? It would be super boring. if it sort of played itself, just that you had to give orders. Just like if you would just click button "vulture drop" and it would automatically do it etc.
starcraft is a game of speed, mechanics and strategy.
Sc2 would make it be less of speed and more "strategy" which i don't like much. It might be an awesome game, but BW will be more awesome anyways so i will just stick with bw i think.
|
On January 26 2009 17:10 MorningMusume11 wrote:
From Chobotron's interview article with July =P
Advice for players who want to be ProGamers?
I really wanna say to progamer cadidates, "Don't be a progamer, its so hard more than you imagine"
Nothing is easy in life.
Besides i think the progamer life is becoming easier all the time.
Before they had like humane right issues, now its not that bad i think.
|
On January 26 2009 17:02 Unentschieden wrote:
Good that you realize that, that was the message. In chess there are many more different gamestates despite:
Mirrored "factions"
Absolute knowledge of gamestate.
Turn Based.
No resource system.
No production system.
etc...
So why wouldn´t SC2 be able to have strategic depht?
I think Starcraft 2 can have more strategic depth by removing any useless units like SC1 had with the Scout, Queen, etc., and also by making macro have more depth as well.
It's just my overall point is that you're never going to get create situations where memorization is a non-factor. No such thing exists at the pro level, no matter what the game is. Even when changing your strategy on the fly, there's a degree of applying previously memorized knowledge to what you change your strategy to. The most you can ever do is create as many viable options as possible, but I don't think that's really a big issue with Starcraft in general. It could certainly have more, but it definitely has enough to create a pro scene as it is.
|
On January 26 2009 23:17 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2009 17:02 Unentschieden wrote:
Good that you realize that, that was the message. In chess there are many more different gamestates despite:
Mirrored "factions"
Absolute knowledge of gamestate.
Turn Based.
No resource system.
No production system.
etc...
So why wouldn´t SC2 be able to have strategic depht?
I think Starcraft 2 can have more strategic depth by removing any useless units like SC1 had with the Scout, Queen, etc., and also by making macro have more depth as well. It's just my overall point is that you're never going to get create situations where memorization is a non-factor. No such thing exists at the pro level, no matter what the game is. Even when changing your strategy on the fly, there's a degree of applying previously memorized knowledge to what you change your strategy to. The most you can ever do is create as many viable options as possible, but I don't think that's really a big issue with Starcraft in general. It could certainly have more, but it definitely has enough to create a pro scene as it is.
Queen isn't useless actually. even jaedong has been using it lately.
Scout is kind of useless, because its so expensive, and needs so many upgrades.
If they made scout have speed without teching it, and maybe be a little cheaper, it would rocx
|
Nothing is easy in life.
That's just not true.
Tons of things are very easy, but humans tend to try things they don't find easy, because easy is boring.
|
fantastic write up, i wanna your babies.
|
Compare chess to Swedish chess to see the difference between a game that's largely based on mechanics, and one that's largely based on improvisation. Swedish chess used to pull crowds around us when we'd play at college because the games were so explosive and off the wall, whereas unless someone had a hyped up a game of standard chess to the max, no one would give a shit.
http://www.chessvariants.org/multiplayer.dir/tandem.html
They call it bughouse chess. Whatever works.
|
On January 26 2009 17:02 Unentschieden wrote:
Good that you realize that, that was the message. In chess there are many more different gamestates despite:
Mirrored "factions"
Absolute knowledge of gamestate.
Turn Based.
It's not despite, Chess can have that many playable gamestates because of those factors. It's not that difficult to create many potential gamestates, the task comes in balancing the game so that getting to all of those states is actually possible. Really, the simpler a game is in its core rules the easier that is to do.
Also, you're completely ignoring the fact that Chess has evolved over centuries.
|
On January 26 2009 04:54 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2009 02:54 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
But in 99% of all games you just don't have to and so you can't perform strategically "outstanding" play, nearly everything has been done before. Then 99% of all games simply aren´t strategic. Maybe SC:BW is one of these. But SC2 should try to be in the 1% that is so diverse that players can´t simply "solve" strategy by pure memorization.
Wait, you rip this out of context just to make up SC:BW wouldn't be strategic?
I was talking about SC:BW games. You maybe are not aware of the development SC:BW has gone through, when it was released (and many many years after that) you could play freestyle like you want because nearly everyone did it. If you would mind to read my post you would know why this has changed and why most of the SC:BW gamers like this situation, not having to think twice about the strategy to perform.
It's because you can focus on macro/micro which are the main elements of the game nowadays, it will never be Boxertime again where you could surprise your opponent with some very cheesy/genius stuff. SC:BW is nearly 11 fucking years old, what do you expect, daily new innovations strategywise? You could have had that in 2001.
The thing imo is that you can't compare SC:BW to other RTS. Not because it is better, which is a fact. Simply because there was never ever any RTS which showed such longevity and could due to that be examined and "improved" like that. Look at equivalents in other genres, let's take CS. Way back in time you could have never imagined how Progamers nowadays are playing this game while still being on the same maps with same graphics and so on. Of course other things are taking part of that, technological progress in form of broadband and faster PCs and so on. But still people figured out - over years - how to break the game getting the best possible results out of it and !still! are doing so. You just can't compare those games to any 1-2 years-lasting games.
So I guess games like those require other rules than the 0815 games on the market. The best way to simplify how those should look like would be imo: Leave the game(play) open for improvement of itself.
I know Blizzard is trying to do so, but some implements just sound contradictory to that.
I really am in fear for SC2 being some game which you can max out in a forseeable time, like 1-2 years. The most important thing which kills games in my mind is when it is very easy to figure out THE best strategy, even if it is just for 1 MU.
On January 26 2009 07:55 Unentschieden wrote:
Players have to adapt to changing situations - that is the skill. What if the Terran first got lots of Marines but switches later? What if you don´t even notice because you don´t stumble on the Spaceports?
Remember, unlike a Gameplan that you can carefully prepare that the changing Situations limited knowledge about said Situation and time pressure (and everyones beloved multitasking) make finding the right solution a lot harder than "today I´m going to use Siege Tanks and Goliaths".
Any experienced player could pull like 2-3 possible counters on any strat the opponent ist doing. I guess not even the worst D- newbs has to think about what to do when he recognizes the Terran is switching. And if he doesn't notice it is not a fault of the game being not strategic enough, it's the players fault. I really don't like it when people come up and try to blame the game for their losses.
As described, this game is so old, anything has been done before. Maybe not on televised games of progamers but in practice and B.Net Pub/Insert any Ladder it definetly has. Being adaptive on the opponents play is the first thing you have to learn in SC:BW and that is very painful 
|
The "babysitting" opens up opportunities for a more challenging and complete game experience. Macroing so that you have more to micro with leads to an increase in possible strategies, etc, and changes the type of game you're playing. I think people also ignore the fact that how you choose to macro also leads to differences between high and low economy play, both of which are viable strategies.
|
Ppl dont forget that, standard paths > improvisation
strategy is not thinking with ubber 10k IQ and mind tricking your opponent, strategy is a gameplan you have in your mind before joining a battle, Art of War of Sun Tzu for those who never could read it
please, some progamers (especially warcraft ones) have readed it and follow game plans when join their matches.
Also , it is part of the standard gameplay that u have to pay attention to ur opponent to avoid unorthodoxical plays and get ready for "IMPROVISATIONS".
Battles, war, arent math, your mind doesnt have the same ilimited room to fly around with mindfucks(sorry, the dirty word) as it would have with equations.
You have to pay with money and time for your creations, also there is no guarantee that it will work due to lucky factors, cause if you try something that was never done, even by you, be sure that the result of the matchup will be there only by luck, more advanced strategies cant be created in a fraction of seconds, and if the opponent find a way to defuse ur "improvisation" that fast , thats cause you dont have 10k Ubber Hardcore IQ
Lets try to avoid utopias, chess is tbs sc is rts
2cents =/
|
On January 27 2009 15:06 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2009 04:54 Unentschieden wrote:On January 26 2009 02:54 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
But in 99% of all games you just don't have to and so you can't perform strategically "outstanding" play, nearly everything has been done before. Then 99% of all games simply aren´t strategic. Maybe SC:BW is one of these. But SC2 should try to be in the 1% that is so diverse that players can´t simply "solve" strategy by pure memorization. Wait, you rip this out of context just to make up SC:BW wouldn't be strategic? I was talking about SC:BW games. You maybe are not aware of the development SC:BW has gone through, when it was released (and many many years after that) you could play freestyle like you want because nearly everyone did it. If you would mind to read my post you would know why this has changed and why most of the SC:BW gamers like this situation, not having to think twice about the strategy to perform. It's because you can focus on macro/micro which are the main elements of the game nowadays, it will never be Boxertime again where you could surprise your opponent with some very cheesy/genius stuff. SC:BW is nearly 11 fucking years old, what do you expect, daily new innovations strategywise? You could have had that in 2001.
I didn´t say SC:BW wasn´t strategy, thats just you. I just said maybe, everyone has a own opinion about that.
Creativity is dead in SC:BW, all that is left is to squeze in another Action per Minute? Is that your point?
I´m not questioning you, I just don´t like it.
On January 27 2009 15:06 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
The thing imo is that you can't compare SC:BW to other RTS. Not because it is better, which is a fact. Simply because there was never ever any RTS which showed such longevity and could due to that be examined and "improved" like that. Look at equivalents in other genres, let's take CS. Way back in time you could have never imagined how Progamers nowadays are playing this game while still being on the same maps with same graphics and so on. Of course other things are taking part of that, technological progress in form of broadband and faster PCs and so on. But still people figured out - over years - how to break the game getting the best possible results out of it and !still! are doing so. You just can't compare those games to any 1-2 years-lasting games.
Didn´t you just say the opposite in the above paragraph? About gameplay being stale, all strategies and inovations explored?
On January 27 2009 15:06 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
So I guess games like those require other rules than the 0815 games on the market. The best way to simplify how those should look like would be imo: Leave the game(play) open for improvement of itself.
I know Blizzard is trying to do so, but some implements just sound contradictory to that.
I really am in fear for SC2 being some game which you can max out in a forseeable time, like 1-2 years. The most important thing which kills games in my mind is when it is very easy to figure out THE best strategy, even if it is just for 1 MU.
Really, do tell what you mean with "improvement of itself"? Don´t patch and let the community agree on a balance modification?
On January 26 2009 07:55 Unentschieden wrote:
Players have to adapt to changing situations - that is the skill. What if the Terran first got lots of Marines but switches later? What if you don´t even notice because you don´t stumble on the Spaceports?
Remember, unlike a Gameplan that you can carefully prepare that the changing Situations limited knowledge about said Situation and time pressure (and everyones beloved multitasking) make finding the right solution a lot harder than "today I´m going to use Siege Tanks and Goliaths".
Any experienced player could pull like 2-3 possible counters on any strat the opponent ist doing. I guess not even the worst D- newbs has to think about what to do when he recognizes the Terran is switching. And if he doesn't notice it is not a fault of the game being not strategic enough, it's the players fault. I really don't like it when people come up and try to blame the game for their losses.
As described, this game is so old, anything has been done before. Maybe not on televised games of progamers but in practice and B.Net Pub/Insert any Ladder it definetly has. Being adaptive on the opponents play is the first thing you have to learn in SC:BW and that is very painful [/QUOTE]
The first thing you have to learn is to get your peons to work and that is torture.
Countering your opponent I´d say is satisfying, even moreso If you manage to counter his counter.
|
The first thing you have to learn is to get your peons to work and that is torture.
Countering your opponent I´d say is satisfying, even moreso If you manage to counter his counter
Honestly, do you even like Starcraft? Some of the most satisfying feelings of accomplishment I've had in my gaming life involve those rare occasions where your game is on and your hitting every SCV the instant it pops out and grabbing +shift hotkeying every unit that comes out perfectly. It just feels SO GOOD when you look back and think about each individual thing you just did all in under like 2-3 seconds as your friends watch and be like "I could never do that no matter how hard I tried." Frankly, just countering strategies is extremely boring to me if I'm not actually improving every time I play the game.
|
[quote=NatsuTerran]It just feels SO GOOD when you look back and think about each individual thing you just did all in under like 2-3 seconds [/quote]
I think you should play stepmania (keyboard is fine too, they have files of that) or other response-mechanics games.
The genre is "Strategy" and you can do the game justice if there weren't any. There is nothing wrong with liking the comfortable feeling of controlling a ton of things fast and precise, and I like that myself. However Starcraft is more than that.
Frankly, just countering strategies is extremely boring to me if I'm not actually improving every time I play the game.
You are improving if you are countering strategies properly. With every game you are suppose to learn the effectiveness of each counter. So do you build 5 turrets or 3? Just how much drone whoring can you when you stop a fast gas on katrina....and so on. The devil is in the details as a unspotted dropship or a well placed mine can reverse the game flow and that is what makes Starcraft fun to watch.
If you are training your muscles, your coordination improves. If you are training your mind, your counters improve to ever improved efficiency and precision. A newbie can move SCV to mine too, but a skilled player do it better. Same with strategy like setting up flanks, timings or pulling boxer tricks, any newbie can do it, but a good player do it better.
|
On January 26 2009 07:55 Unentschieden wrote:
The first thing you have to learn is to get your peons to work and that is torture.
Countering your opponent I´d say is satisfying, even moreso If you manage to counter his counter.
I won't continue this conversation because it would result in some flamefest with "I hate SC, but SC2 OWNNNZZZZ just because it won't be like SC (even if I don't play it very frequently)" vs "Keep the good things of SC in SC2 and don't make it another boring luckgame which will be dead after few years".
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
Funny how all the examples seem to revolve around StarCraft and Chess, as if RTS and TBS are the only genres that involve strategy.
Two reasons why strategy can be planned almost completely in-advance outside of the game in the cases of Chess and StarCraft:
1. The # of plausible strategies is small.
2. There is little-to-no need to adapt to an opponent's unique strengths, weaknesses, quirks, etc. during a game. If this aspect were more important, then you could e.g. have a strategy to learn what their personal weaknesses are and then put together a strategy that exploits their weaknesses in the midst of the game.
This can be done in between games of StarCraft, e.g. you may notice your opponent is bad at dealing with muta harass, or has a tendency to leave expos undefended against drops, etc., and then use those weaknesses against him in the subsequent games. But the ability to discover and prey on a person's weaknesses in the middle of a single game is all but useless in StarCraft.
Edit: I changed my mind about how to express point #2: see below.
|
Well.. You could call Scouting --> No drop defense exploiting the weakness due to ingame information?
|
|
|
If you are trying to say that fun is important in competitive play that you are sort of right, but you missed the whole thing.
Most players who became pro gamers did so becaose they liked the game in the first place, not the other way around.
Is starcraft fun? - yes
is macro in SC unnecessary baby sitting? - No, its an important part of the game that makes the game what it is today. If it didn't have macro it may have not turned out as it has.
There is one way to look at it and here it goes:
Micro - good, adds some depth, skill and fun
Macro - good, adds some depth, skill and fun
Macro&Micro - WIN situation, mixes best of both world and increases depth, skill, fun, strategy and longetivity!
About skill its very simple: everything that helps a player beat the opponent is called skill.
Weather this be strategy, tactics, positioning, APM, micro, macro, game sense, mental strenghts, etc... is all skill.
In some cases more APM makes you an advantage, but it others not.
If we look say at Savior in his prime, he won 75% of his games and was one of the slowest APM in the whole pro gaming scene. This means if he had better game sense, better tactics and mental state than his opponent who had less of those skills but more APM he would still loose anyways!
So every single thing in SC is important, the game is better than the sum of its parts and thats a fact. There have been and will be games that have more micro or more macro or more strategy than SC, but ultimately they can't find the right balance between all those elements and the game end up being boring after some time spend with it.
So ultimately to speak for one thing as good and other thing as bad is as ignorant or unknowledgable as it can be.
Thats like figuring out the meaning of life itself, its just not possible at lest yet... :D
|
On January 29 2009 08:38 Bill307 wrote:That's a good point and I didn't really consider it when I was writing my post. I think I should have written my 2nd point differently. In my opinion, StarCraft doesn't really expose unique individual differences as much as other genres of games can. But maybe I'm making this statement due to my own limited point of view, since whenever I play 1v1 against someone I don't know, I always play "the same". Maybe my build or overall gameplan will be different, but the differences will not depend on who my opponent is or what their personality is like. (Except pre-game things like "I think this guy is inexperienced so I'll do something stupid and unexpected in the hopes that he won't be able to adapt to it." Or, "I hate this guy so I'll do a proxy rush."  ) And rarely does a situation arise in-game where I actually need to stop and think to myself, "This guy has shut down all my usual strategies / attacks. How do I overcome this guy and his unique strategy / style of play?" (And when that does happen, I'm usually already dead anyway. =/ ) This is what I am referring to when I say that you do not need to adapt to your opponent's personality.
I partly agree but also disagree. It's true that the beginning of the game, most of the time you will do the same bo (even if you alter your builds, this is not relevant to your opponent). However, after a few exchanges like watching his scout and his behavior in base, your game sense should be tingling to tell you how this opponent behaves. For example, suppose it's a new season and you are playing at d+ level, if your opponent has an active scout + no idling at base it instantly tells you this guy has good multitask or is better than a regular D+ player. This may subconsciously affect you to do less/more risky plays than how you usually play. (eg. you may play get more defence than usual or do proxy because you believe your skill can't match your opponent's)
In regards to personality, it is a skill to take advantage of your opponent's skill-set. Suppose you are playing zeal/temp vs hydras. If your opponent can storm-dodge + snipe ht, you may play more cautiously and alter your unit-mix. Whereas if your opponent focuses more on macro and less micro, you may add more ht because it gives a better return. This in itself of recognizing your opponent's weakness is a skill, and as skill level goes up where your opponent seems perfect in everything, it becomes harder to exploit the weakness.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On January 29 2009 13:01 PocketX wrote:
Suppose you are playing zeal/temp vs hydras. If your opponent can storm-dodge + snipe ht, you may play more cautiously and alter your unit-mix.
Assuming you haven't already fallen hopelessly behind due to his micro. =/ The fact that RTS games have a slippery slope effect when you start to fall behind (fall behind => fall even farther behind) means that even if you learn from your experience, the fact that you've already lost a battle or whatnot could mean that you'll lose the game regardless of whether or not you adapt (unless your opponent blunders).
But aside from that drawback, I agree with what you wrote.
|
What kills strategic play are 3 things (and they're connected):
1. There are build orders which get you into mid or even late game without much trouble - meaning early and mid game strategies are almost always doomed to fail unless you can prevent the opponent from scouting it. There is a "best build" which you can slightly adapt to any situation.
This is bad. Remember Flash not SCV scouting at all in TvP, and winning? That's why this is bad - you should always have to adapt to what your opponent is doing. You should lose if you don't know it. But SC has like one or two openings in each matchup on each map which work against everything (with only very slight modifications you can do on-the-fly without many problems).
Pretty much the only reason why progamers lose to other progamers in early or mid game is a micro or timing mistake (they know and can do better, but things like that can always happen) or a greedy build order (e.g. PvZ with P FE: not adding enough cannons in case of a hydra break)
2. In late game, most (if not all) RTS (including SC1) are mostly about mechanical skill respectively multitasking ability. Other skills are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
That's the physical sport aspect of it - it's like soccer - no one expects great creative play or something. The players just need to be physically skilled, that's all.
When you're good at #2 you'll roll over opponents who are not good at it. It will automatically look like your macro and micro is amazing, simply because you're doing so many tasks at once.
#2 is why SC1 can never really be compared to e.g. chess, even though people always will try to because they try to overglorify the "strategy" aspect of SC1 while not realizing (or not wanting to realize) that the strategy aspect of SC1 is really small.
3. Luck. With the real-time aspect comes luck. And in late game when you're doing a lot of things "at once" you will not be able to react fast enough in some situations, and even though as a progamer you're amazing at deciding when to pay attention to what, you'll inevitably be like 1 second too slow in some situations, and combine this with the fact that most SC units die extremely fast (almost instantly), and you know why this can be a factor of "luck" and why this can be very bad for you sometimes. Another luck factor is of course the path finding - units will sometimes move stupidly and you WILL lose some units because of that.
Ignoring #3, which can't really be changed, this means that:
When you're good at #1, you'll almost always reach late game, and when you're good at #2 as well, then you're gosu - playing as fast and as precise as a robot.
Bad players (let's just say iccup < A) are bad at both. Good *foreign* players are at least good at #1, not very good at #2 - most only have around 200 APM too. Korean progamers are good at both. Plus, Koreans are the only ones who seem to understand that the things that matter the most are great build orders and great multitasking/mechanics. Many foreigners still live in dreamland and try to optimize irrelevant aspects about their gameplay while Koreans train mechanics hardcore and make sure they are able to follow the best build orders to the best of their ability.
|
If SC2 isn't fun, I wouldn't play it competitively much less play it.
SC1 is fun at all levels from beginner to competitive level. WC3, I never liked it at any level.
|
On January 29 2009 15:49 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
1. There are build orders which get you into mid or even late game without much trouble - meaning early and mid game strategies are almost always doomed to fail unless you can prevent the opponent from scouting it. There is a "best build" which you can slightly adapt to any situation.
This is bad. Remember Flash not SCV scouting at all in TvP, and winning? That's why this is bad - you should always have to adapt to what your opponent is doing. You should lose if you don't know it. But SC has like one or two openings in each matchup on each map which work against everything (with only very slight modifications you can do on-the-fly without many problems).
Pretty much the only reason why progamers lose to other progamers in early or mid game is a micro or timing mistake (they know and can do better, but things like that can always happen) or a greedy build order (e.g. PvZ with P FE: not adding enough cannons in case of a hydra break)
This is like saying Halo 3 is more skillful than Halo 1 because in H1 there is only one dominant weapon (pistol) that outslays everything else. And your argument is that your opponent has doesn't have to adapt his play as much as in H3 because every weapon in H3 is viable under certain situations.
Don't you realize how stupid that is? Why should someone lose because They are holding a certain weapon? Why should someone lose because they chose a certain build? There MUST be a safe build in which the whole game revolves around. Something to be used as a benchmark for skill. Much like in H1 the Pistol is your main battle tool, and everything else is a prized sidearm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
