Let''s compare, WC3, and AOM (who is the shitty one, heh, OF COURSE AOM!!!) well, so what makes the WC3 game to be so good? if you know what is MICRO and MACRO, so, what the game should focus more, MICRO, or MACRO? (micro=controling the units (in WC3 creeping),macro=controling the map (towers, walls, expanding)) and if you noticed, WC3 putted some RPG elements in the game, is this good or bad? and if someone tried to keep up with blizzard, they are all the time getting new patches (every week!), and most of the patches are balancing... so balancing is the thing that make a good RTS? so, what do you think about that? I want to hear replies (I''m making somekind of a survey...

I''ve only played the demo of AoM, but I didn''t think it was so bad. Would you like to explain why you thought it was shitty?

As for WC3, I could never get into it for the following reasons:

1. Far too much micro. Even with the autocast spells and other features, it just took too much micromanagement to be able to acheive anything worthwhile.

2. Heroes. Partly because they added a whole load of extra micromanagement to the mix (you have to use spells and items if you want to make the most of them) but also because all that levelling crap distracts you from the main point of an RTS game, which is smashing your opponent.

3. The computer AI is horrible to learn against. ''Easy'' is exactly the same as ''Difficult'' with the exception that the computer doesn''t expand as much. Not that it matters, because it still micromanages like a god which is pretty much all that counts in WC3. The difficulty levels in the Age Of * games are much better implemented, making them a reasonably useful tool to learn the game with.

4. Starcraft is a lot better.

As side note, I think the AoM engine is far superior to the WC3 one. WC3 chuggeds on my old machine with only 100 or so units on the screen, the AoM demo ran smoothly with twice that.

Anyway, to answer your questions:

what the game should focus more, MICRO, or MACRO?

Personally, I find the macro side more interesting - and more deserving of the word ''strategy'' than micro. Too much focus on micro and the game turns into a clickfest.

WC3 putted some RPG elements in the game, is this good or bad?

In my opinion, bad. Although this may be more of a flaw with Blizzard''s implementation than with the idea itself.

so balancing is the thing that make a good RTS?

Balanced races are important to a game like WC3 because it is mostly played competitively, and people like to be given a fair chance to win in these games.

Balanced units are important to a game like WC3, because if one unit is too weak, no one in their right mind would use it, so what''s the point in having it? If one unit is too powerful, then ALL the other units are useless, which is even worse.

I agree with Sandman: too much micro made versus mode in wc3 not fun. Its worse than games like quake3 where reflex is all that matters. I love a mix of micro/macro where you don''t have too many units but each one matters a lot more. Strategy/Tactics should be very important, so you with equal forces one side can totally dominate the other if that side has good strategy/tactics and the other does not.

I, personally, like the idea behind the hero system in wc3, but I don''t like the implementation. A game where every unit was a ''hero'' with an inventory, experience (not levels, but maybe spending experience directly in trade for skills, so like a point based system), stats (not many, maybe one mental and one physical), etc could be very interesting I think. At least, if I ever make ''my game'', I plan on taking it in that kind of direction.

I never played AoM but I did play a lot of WC3. And I''d have to say that I was not very impressed with WC3. It did require an excessive amount of micromanagement and that frustrated me.

I''m a purest. When I think of strategy, I think of Chess.

I have had numerous conversations with fellow gamers about the difference between Tactics and Strategy. I think RTS is a misnomer and that the genre *should* have been called RTT (real-time tactical).

But that is neither here nor there. It just seems that in most instances of RTS gaming its ''Build up as much as possible and fling it at your enemy, rinse, repeat''. Honestly, I''m frustrated with it. War is a completely different engine. Strategy should not only include the tactical methods of maneuvering your units into a position in order to strike your opponent but also should include other logistical elements. And on a macro scale, even politics (General Patton was very frustrated with the politics he had to deal with). I also believe that losing units should cost MORE than building new ones. There are NUMEROUS facets of strategy and war that the RTS industry has not even BEGUN to tap into.

But enough of that... to answer your questions:

Should an RTS focus more on Micro or Macro?

- Depends on your goal for the game. RTS games that deal more on Micro levels tend to be more exciting then games that are more Macro in essence. What''s more exciting to you? Watching 100 units battle it out in hand-to-hand combat against an opposing 100 units? Or watching two icons flash combat BMP''s as the combat is handled behind-the-scenes? I''m not saying the two can''t coexist...

RPG Elements in an RTS?

- I think that is a definite necessity in the maturation of the RTS Genre. RPG elements pull the player closer to their units and developes an attachment. I think WC3 did a poor job at implementing RPG elements but I think they were on to something in theory.

Balancing important in RTS?

- Balancing is important. For example, I''m pretty upset that Homeworld 2 included a Battlecruiser (read ''biggest baddest ship''). I''m actually considering removing the Battlecruiser from the game and updating AI''s and such accordingly so the game would be more enjoyable. Starcraft had an incredible balance in its game. Ask any 10 people and you are likely to find differing opinions on the best race. However, I also believe that paper-rock-scissors has almost outlived its time.


Anyway, thought I would add thoughts to this thread.

-Enoch Dagor

I havent played much of AoM either, but that was not because i think it is a bad game. I just didnt like the games setting as much as Starcrafts or Warcrafts. (And that i dont know anyone who is actively playing AoM IRL matters too.)

As for Macro and Micro:
It entirely depends on the gamer. (As we will see here )

I dont like WC3 either. Not because it has too much micromanagement tho. It quite simply is too slow, you got nothing to do when your not fighting (creeping doesnt count) and you cant always fight.

Then it''s resource system is too trivial, same goes for all macromanagment. Then creeping distracts from the actual gameplay, if i want to bash CPU creatures i can do that offline.

Heroes... Heroes are fine with me, if they wouldnt force me to creep all the time and keep my units all at one place.

For a competitive game good balancing is a must.

I''m still very happy with playing Broodwar competitively. It''s fast (always room for me to get faster), very well balanced, you''re not forced to play entirely forcused on micro or macro it always depends on your playing style and race. Then there ofc is battle.net and a huge community, which is always good for tournaments or BW related tools etc.

For some relaxed playing i''m waiting to get my hands on a copy of Rome TW, which so far looks pretty good.

And you might want to look into the "RTS = Realtime Stalemate" thread, which touches some micro vs macro aspects.

You cant say that micro=tactics and macro=strategy. Both micro and macro have non strategic/tactical elements.

WC3 for an example has alooooooooot of micro. Pretty much the most micro of any RTS ever. But it also has about the least ammount of tactics I''ve ever seen in an RTS. There is so much micromanagement that you just "have to do", there''s no tactical questions and considerations (or extremely light ones with only 1-2 viable choices) to be done in some elements you just have to get it done if you want to stand a chance.As I said in another thread it feels like if you made WC3 into a turn based game then you would be able to play alot more "perfect" than you would in other rts games converted to turn based. Because _alot_ of the micro is just clicking.

Also macro doesn''t only have to be strategy. For an example in SC when you have to keep pumping out units from all your 4 billion production facilities that''s macro but sure as hell not strategy (the decition on what troops to make is strategy but the making of tons of them once you have decided is not).

I personally feel that I''d like to see about 75% tactics and 25% strategy in an RTS. That doesnt mean I''d nessecarily want to see 75% micro and 25% macro. As much as possible of micro that is not tactical should be removed and same with macro. Once that is done I''l say 75% micro and 25% macro.

To answer your other questions:

RPG in RTS?
Sure, depending on what kind of game you want to make. The way they did it in WC3? Hell no.

Balancing?
Balancing doesn''t make an RTS good but it''s required for an RTS to be good (amongst online players atleast, singleplayer players usually don''t care as much).

What makes a good RTS?
Far too many things to list here

I could never get into WC3 as well for the following reasons:

1. Micro and Macro
In WC3, you are working on both. Microing can be fun, but only when your opponent is microing as well. When playing against ppl who like to mass a unit a lot, microing is frustrating because your units die so quick, and rebuilding them is a pain in the ass. Try to watch 1v1 replays of top players. The replay is entertaining (read: more tactics and strategy) to watch only after the mid-game when two players are starting to have limited amount of resources and units. They maneuver a lot, attack pull-back attack pull-back, they use/buy items for powerups, a good example of good microing. I think WC3 is designed to be played like that. You don''t mass. However, some people fail to see that, and the design of WC3 itself, just like SC, encourages ppl to mass. If you can make 20 huntresses and 20 archers and obliterate everything and win, why not?

2. Patches
There are just way too many patches and there are so many changes made in each patch that you need to adjust your strategy for every patch they release. It isn''t fun at all to play a game with inconsistent data.

A: "So, I need to use unit X to kill unit Y."
B: "Not anymore. They just changed the stats that using X to fight Y is a suicide."
A: "So what unit should I use?"
B: "Try Z. That''s the best you can get."

a week later
B: "They released a new patch. You can now use unit X against unit Y, again."
A: "What about Z?"
B: "Can''t use it against Y. You use Z against W."

3. Creeping
Forcing players to creep in early game really is a bad idea. You play to beat your opponent. You play to kill his units, not to kill innocent monsters that did nothing to you. Blizzard has tried to fix this tho in FT by not allowing heroes to reach level 6 by creeping. Still, it doesn''t remove the necessity of creeping.



And my opinion for a good RTS,
None of the features, except balancing, you mentioned can make an RTS a good RTS. RTS stands for real-time strategy. It is strategy that matters. Meaning if you put all units from two sides into a battle, there is no winner or loser. Strategy will decide who wins or loses. Just like a chess. It is strategy that moves the piece. A pawn is as deadly as a queen, if put on the right position. Without strategy both sides are equal. There is no way of telling which side is winning.

Game designers today try to add more and more varieties in RTS games. They add more races, more units, and more features. However, what are they for but adding more complexity? Why do you want to have 4 races instead of 3 races? Does a game with more races guarantees more fun? No.

Same thing for units. More kinds doesn''t mean more fun. Try to design a unit that you think is necessary. Don''t design a unit just because that unit is good at killing unit X. Because people won''t use that unit unless they see unit X on the field. Think about chess. Is a bishop designed to kill a queen? Is a queen designed to kill the king? The answers are no and no. In chess, each kind has its own way of moving. Each kind can kill anything as long as it can reach its target.

I just think RTS games nowadays are not yet RTS.

Dont think that I forgat about StarCraft, it''s the best game ever!

sandman, the game AOM is not a good game!
well, it''s my opinion, because:

1. no information about units (no HP, no RANGE...)
2. the units wasnt strong enough, so if you wanted to destroy others people base, you had to send too much units.
3. the only creatures that could do any diffrence where the fantasy creatures, and they sucked (expensive, slow to build...).

I can think about alot more reason...

here is some other questions
1.economy, what should is better as resources collecting crystal and gas(SC) or gold, food, wood, stone(AO*)? (well, you get the idea)
2.paper-rock-scissors - good or bad?
in WC3 there where 6 types of damage, and 6 types of armours.
3. in my game I planned to enter to the units a little touch of RPG, I mean, adding levels to each unit, and each level, his HP, MP, and damage will increase. the increament will be very very small, but still, will make an advantage in battle.
good idea, or not?

well, I learned alot by your replies.
Thanks to all.

I think it''s MOCRO (more control). (Micro(minion control?) Macro(map control?))
So you take MICRO + MACRO and multiply it by two. =)

No, I think the scripting engine should be supeeer flexible.
The best is to release the mapeditor, which is not only a map-creator, but also compatible with the scripting engine, so you can make missions for singleplayer and for multiplayer aswell.

We see this in Warcraft and the great editor that comes with the game. The MOD-community made good use of this pretty precious and developed hundreds and thousands of cool maps. The gameplay differs per map too!! (that''s why the scripting engine needs to be flexible).

Of course the story (if you have one) should introduce some strong characters, so the gamers will sense the difference between some stupid unit and the great heroes.

The graphics are not very important (might aswell use 2D), as long as you put some particle effects in it. (those are nice for screenshot)

Now about yóùr game, need an extra coder?

.lick

alnite,
complexity is good. How fun would a game with only 2 units per side be? Complexity ads depth (if it''s balanced and well designed) and lets the player explore, wich most people think is fun. A game with only 2 sides and limited units becomes old very fast (tiberian sun), while a game with 3 sides and pretty many units (sc) is still being played today over 5 years from its release.
Of course there are different kinds of complexity. You shouldnt bog the player down with loads of spreadsheets and numbers and crap. Good complexity is nothing but the ole "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master".
And yeah, too much complexity is never good (is too much of _anything_ ever good?) but to say that complexity in itself is bad is just wrong imo.

Ilankt,
In WC3 there''s 6 types of damage and armor but they aren''t used very effectively. The only thing that actually matters is piercing vs normal armor and x(can''t remember the name) vs fortified armor.
C&C had a way better system with 5 armor types and unlimited damage types. You really could notice a big difference on different weapons there.

About the RPG element you want to implement. What matters mostly imo is how big your units are on screen and how many units you will typically control in the game. If they are too many (ie like starcraft) then no.
If they aren''t all that many (ie wc3) then sure, but you should have an indicator of their level displayed ON the screen (visible without having to select the unit and look in any sort of infobox) if not then it would be an annoyance to the player to have to keep track on what units are high leveled or not.