quote:Original post by Argus While that might be nice (although in that case why have combat at all?), there is always a best way to build one''s economy with a particular goal in mind. And if someone hits with the maximum force immediately after those 15 mins are up, is that not a rush?
If there is only one ''particular goal'', and only one ''best way'', then the game is pointless. It comes down to learning that best way, and executing it flawlessly, and hoping random factors don''t bring you down. You may as well recite poetry from memory for all the ''strategic'' elements it offers.
quote:Essentially, it sounds like you would prefer the ''building'' component of the game to be removed entirely (or at least be farcical in the way that anything you build does not really affect the game).
I can''t remotely see how you derived this from any of my posts. The opposite is true; I''d like the building component of the game to be more important so that it''s not about how quickly you build, it''s about what you choose to build, in what ratios, and how it''s deployed.
quote:You can''t keep it vague and expect to hold a position on it. In order to say something meaningful about anything, you need to define it.
Not true. Tell me; what is the sun''s diameter in miles? Does it not change, not only with time, but with what criteria you are using to measure it? Yet it is still possible to talk meaningly about the sun without being able to say "if I move one inch to the left I am in the sun, and one inch to the right I am out of the sun".
quote:Are you going to suggest that someone who has no idea of a good resource to unit production ratio should do as well as one who does?
No, but a small difference should not be as important as the way the units are used.
quote:And "pre-determined build queues" do not just appear out of thin air - they are strategies in their own right, and often take much analytical thought.
Or trial and error, copying of someone else, and then just learning to micromanage it effectively. Then you win all your games against weaker opponents until they copy it, or do the equivalent for their faction.
quote:Your complaint is that the strategy used against you worked.
No, my complaint is that (in some games) it is hard to repel that strategy without embracing it yourself.
Firstly it is impossible to totally remove a rush from a rts game - simply because the timeframe of it will change no matter how you balance it. If you stop people fighting for the first 15 minutes, they will attack on 15 minute''s and 1 second, is that not still a rush?
After how long does it not become a rush? basically everyone''s definition of this timeframe change''s until it reach''s the point where tthe person who attacks first in a game is rushing.. Only thing you could do is punish theperson who attack''s first which then means that no-one will want to attack first (which doesn''t work very well)
Either way i played starcraft broodwar''s multiplayer alot and contrary to what people who didn''t play it alot and therefore weren''t very good (even though you probably thought you were) a rush is not a very rewarding strategy, a rush against a half decent player will totally fail(while he is teching) - yes even in real life country''s that are researching new technology''s do build up defensive forces while they are doing it.
America did have soldier''s before they developed the nuke - well at least last time i checked the history book''s.
One way to limit the rush factor in your game is to give starting bases high terrain(total annihalation), or cliff''s with choke point''s. With a choke point the enemy troop''s are limited in there movement through the point (forced to approach only 2 at a time) giving defending forces a significant advantage - can hold off the attackers with way less unit''s.
Higher terrain can be used by giving the forces on higher ground an attack bonus (Yes it is easier to shoot someone if you are at the top of a hill and he''s at the bottom) and even a damage bonus, thus by placing a base on higher ground the opponent will need to massively outnumber you in a rush to win, which IMHO if he manages to do you deserve to lose for being really bad at the game or having no brain..
Thirdly there is the time factor of his forces moving toward''s your base (unless the map is totally tiny) by the time he get''s to you, you should have more unit''s then he has sent or at least equal (and should easily fend him off with the above mentioned bonuses) - Note that he still has to find your base before he can attack it (Any decent RTS will have multiple starting place''s on any given map making it harder for him to find you).
Given all this i will point out that the only time i have seen the rush strategy overwhelmingly work in a decent game is in a 3 versus 3 matchup in starcraft - broodwar''s (the reason i never played 3vs3) where if all 3 of one team rush a player of another team - he will be dead before his allys can come to his aid) and it end''s up in a battle to rush (perhap''s early unit''s should have been made more costly or something for 3-3/4-4 matchup''s - im not sure how this could be dealt with..
Anyway that''s my 2c worth.. Rush strategy''s should not be removed, but rather unit''s in the game properly balanced, and combat done properly, that way pulling off a rush succesfully will be both extremely hard and require a rather dimwitted opponent - one taht deserve''s to lose early..
Lastly think of world war 2 - and germany''s early invasion of it''s neighbours before anyone else decided to start fighting with them (that was in a sense a rush) also there blitzkreig combat technique can in ways be parralleled to a rush..
MaNI (sorry about the anonymous post - still waiting for my password )
quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster If you stop people fighting for the first 15 minutes, they will attack on 15 minute''s and 1 second, is that not still a rush?
After how long does it not become a rush? basically everyone''s definition of this timeframe change''s until it reach''s the point where tthe person who attacks first in a game is rushing..
*sigh* Everyone is trying to define the rush in terms of a fixed timescale. In fact, the rush (at least for the purposes of this discussion) is when you create an overwhelming force so quickly that an opponent has little chance unless they explicitly prepare for such a rush. The actual timespan is irrelevant. It''s whether the defender has had the chance to actively choose a strategy or not; and whether they had more than one decent strategy to choose from.
And yes, the WW2 blitzkrieg was a rush, it worked well, but was it fun for the defenders? No. Not really a good example then. A game should provide good opportunity to be fun for both sides.
quote:Original post by Kylotan *sigh* Everyone is trying to define the rush in terms of a fixed timescale. In fact, the rush (at least for the purposes of this discussion) is when you create an overwhelming force so quickly that an opponent has little chance unless they explicitly prepare for such a rush. The actual timespan is irrelevant. It's whether the defender has had the chance to actively choose a strategy or not; and whether they had more than one decent strategy to choose from.
I think if any useful discussion is going to come out of this thread we need to stop arguing about whether or not all RTS games are mindless rushing games, and get on to serious discussions about what to do about it.
I think we can all agree on the following:
1. Early rushes spoil the fun of the game, particularly for new or casual players who may never consider abstract defenses like the 'wall in' strategy Argus mentioned. Even if there are no other reasons, this alone is reason enough to try and reduce the effectiveness of rushing.
2. Rushes are largely a symptom of the peon pumping paradigm. Both players start of very weak - small differences in micromanagement skill and knowledge of build orders can make big differences to the game balance at the early stages of the game. Its this imbalance that the rushers try to exploit.
quote:Original post by Sandman I think if any useful discussion is going to come out of this thread we need to stop arguing about whether or not all RTS games are mindless rushing games, and get on to serious discussions about what to do about it.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original post by Sandman I think if any useful discussion is going to come out of this thread we need to stop arguing about whether or not all RTS games are mindless rushing games, and get on to serious discussions about what to do about it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As i mentioned in my post the best way to stop rushing game''s is to design teh map''s properly, by making proper use of the terrain (strategical point''s like choke point''s or slow to walk over terrain around the starting bases) and higher ground (troop''s with upper ground advantage have a better chance to hit, or further line of sight(they see the troop''s sooner and can start firing sooner)) anyone who attempted to ''rush'' would be at a severe disadvantage, as they would be attacking from lower ground, would be seen and come under fire first, and could be forced to move in bad fromations to get over the strategical landmark (say a bridge over a river for example)
Personally, I think that the rush can be fun but most of the time I find it completely annoying. For example, I’m a builder and a planner and my best friend, Chris, is a rusher. When we first began playing against one another in C&C I would be steadily building my perfect base and positioning my forces all the while planning the perfect strategic attack on my enemy. All the while my best friend had slammed a base down and had started pumping out tanks faster than you could say “whatchamacallit.”
Ten minutes into the game and my Chris is killing me.
That’s when I really despise the rush. Ok, so when is the rush acceptable? Hmmm, well, there have been times when Chris and I have been playing for hours and there isn’t really any end in site. Most recently in C&C: Generals we had been building and skirmishing and rebuilding for our own version of Armageddon. Rushes at this point of the game were a welcome relief to the tense struggle that had proceeded.
Where am I going with all this chatter? Well, I think it’s a personal style of play. No matter how you change the game rules, there will be people that choose to build up fast and attack. Is this harmful to the game? Does it reduce the enjoyment of all players? It definitely ruins the fun for the rushee but the rusher is definitely satisfied.
I think that while playing against other human opponents we should expect pretty much anything. As a matter of fact, I think the rush is a classic AI cheat... how many times while playing Empire or Z or any other RTS/TBS have you seen the computer opponent rush?
So, my answer to the question: The ''rush'': detrimental to RTS strategies? Would have to be, no.
Dave Dak Lozar Loeser
"Software Engineering is a race between the programmers, trying to make bigger and better fool-proof software, and the universe trying to make bigger fools. So far the Universe in winning."--anonymous
Sorry if others have made this point, as I''ve just gotten back from a trip and also have a working cable connection again.
But I think the best way to cure this problem is simple. Don''t build your nation as you go. There are two kinds of strategy games out there. One kind concentrates on being a nation-builder while also attacking your enemy. The other kind is more militarily slanted, and doesn''t concern too much about the nation''s infrastructure that much.
If you build your nation as you go along, this encourages the rush strategy, because you know that your enemy is at this weakest early in the game. If on the other hand your nation is already "pre-built", a rush strategy may or may not work depending on how the player allocated his defense forces. Put it this way, in 1939, Germany easily rolled over Europe because no one had geared up for a war based economy, while Germany had been doing so since Hitler came to power in 36. Imagine on the other hand if a country wanted to attack the United States after 9/11? Depending on how paranoid you are, as a player you might decide to allocate more resources to a war machine. Given that games are basically about war, it''s most likely that players will adopt strong military forces...but there''s still a question about how they will allocate their defense budget.
Will the player put all of his eggs in a defensive strategy (ala the Maginot line), or will it be almost purely land offensive (like the German Bundeswehr? Will the player allocate a disproportionate amount of defense spending on sea power (like England or Holland)?
By having players start with nothing (or next to nothing), then it practically encourages the rush tactic. For this reason, I''m not entirely fond of Tech trees either. While I think they can and do have their place, by and large, I think the player should have about 75% of all available unit types, special powers, and technology already at his disposal. When a game starts out with only having 25% of the available unit types and technology, then you move from a physical rush to a technology rush. While tech rushes are at least partially offset by the startup costs, it can easily unbalance the game if the tech items themselves aren''t well balanced. Also in nation-building games, the very nation-infrastructure/tech tree juxtaposition means that players have two choices....build a large but fairly underpowered army quickly, or wait a little while to have stronger units, but fewer of them while the low-tech army pounds your bases and research buildings.
The simple answer is already have a nation, defense force, economy, and research facilities in place when the game first starts. This means that the opposing player doesn''t know your exact capabilities at first, and must probe your strengths and weaknesses.
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount." - General Omar Bradley
The opposite is true; I''d like the building component of the game to be more important so that it''s not about how quickly you build, it''s about what you choose to build, in what ratios, and how it''s deployed.
)
