Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller Never played Starcraft, have you?

No I haven't.

Quote:

Sandman Quote: Original post by nefthy My point was that resource shortage has become somewhat rare these days. I can remember getting stuck more than once in Warcraft I becouse I missused resources. I can't recall that about anothere RTS game. What other RTS games have you played?

Just realize what a crapy sentence I prodused there. I meant: I can't remember running out of resources in games other than Warcraft I & II.

Now im not sure if you question was a retoric on, but anyways... I have played quite many of them, including the Warcraft series, the Comand and Conquer series, Age of empires, among others. But never played any of them online...

Quote:

Many of these tricks are exploitative of the control system. Like the unstoppable nuke trick, where you hover a barracks over the ghost so your opponent can't target him specifically.

Nukes are almost never used, and that isn't what I am talking about (plus, that "trick" is hard and slow to set up, and by the time you do your opponent would have scouted it, so it certainly isn't unstoppable. Nukes are too hard to tech to, anyway).

Quote:

Ingenious, yes, but it takes you outside the realm of military tactics and strategy and into exploiting the limitations of the interface.

Why does the game have to be all about military tactics? The game should be a mental (and, at higher levels of play, to some extent physical) duel between players. There should not be a law that says, "a real military commander couldn't command individual units to dodge shots!", if it adds to the excitement of playing/observing.

The really clever tricks take a while to explain, but there are also more general ones, like dodging lurker spines, using splash damage to kill cloaked units, positioning units infront of others, etc.

But let's say you don't like doing that, and you want to play a straight-up game. Fine! That's how I play, anyways. I am not an exceptionally fast player, so I concentrate on unit production and expanding my economy over unit control. I have good macro, and while my micro lacks, I am still a good player.

In fact, games often become a battle over which playing style will win out. Micro-based players will try and keep their opponent from expanding by non-stop harrassment. However, the cost of attacking non-stop keeps them from expanding as well, so with fewer units controlling each one becomes very important. Macro-based players will try and secure early expansions while not harassing as much, in order to pump massive armies and decrease the value of each unit (so microing becomes less important).



Also, the real difficulty in playing is in multi-tasking and noticing multiple things at once; I find it hard to beleive that someone can't click on their unit and then on another.

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller Nukes are almost never used, and that isn't what I am talking about (plus, that "trick" is hard and slow to set up, and by the time you do your opponent would have scouted it, so it certainly isn't unstoppable. Nukes are too hard to tech to, anyway).

That's besides the point, I've seen the basic principle used in other contexts as well, using a barracks or some other tough building to cover a ground unit and make it harder to target, and thus drastically increasing its lifespan.

Quote:

Why does the game have to be all about military tactics? The game should be a mental (and, at higher levels of play, to some extent physical) duel between players.

It doesn't, but some players would like a game that is.

Quote:

There should not be a law that says, "a real military commander couldn't command individual units to dodge shots!", if it adds to the excitement of playing/observing.

I agree it can be fun to have a certain amount of micromanagement to add a level of twitch gameplay into the mix. But I don't agree that the only way an RTS can be fun is to rely so heavily on twitch. I'd like to see RTS games that place a greater emphasis on strategy too. Perhaps a lot of people would find it dull, but I think a lot of other people would find it interesting too.

Quote:

Original post by nefthy Now im not sure if you question was a retoric on, but anyways... I have played quite many of them, including the Warcraft series, the Comand and Conquer series, Age of empires, among others. But never played any of them online...

Walling in works against the AI because it is stupid and predictable. You can get a good defence by only walling a small amount of the map, and most the time it will never explore alternate routes into your base. You can even set traps for the AI in AoE - build a wall around your base, and leave a small hole somewhere. Then mass all your ranged weapons and towers nearby. The AI sees the hole and thinks it's a weak spot in your defence - and it will send unit after unit to it's doom in a hopeless attempt to penetrate it. You can capitalize on the computer's stupidity to get much more efficient use of your units. This trick would never work against a human opponent. It's a very different game.

AoE is a bit of an oddball in a way, in that it kind of caters to quite a wide range of players. It can appeal to the builder type players, who want to build nice big impressive towns, as well as to the competitive players who want to kick each other's arses. It's quite configurable to a wide range of play styles.

Starcraft on the other hand is aimed squarely at the competitive crowd. It can still be somewhat fun to muck around with, and there's certainly no shortage of people playing BGH compstomps on battle.net, but overall it's a much more aimed at the competitive players.

Quote:

Original post by Ali_B What is your best real-time-strategy game?? Red Alert, Age of Mythology or War Craft???

StarCraft , no doubt, with WarCraft3 a close second.

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller Could you explain your last paragraph?

Sure. Sorry to have been unclear.

You always start with a town hall and fifty minerals within a short distance of your opponent. Since you always know that the total destruction of their buildings is your goal, you are working toward that constantly. Therefore, little can be gained by doing anything except scouting, rushing, and pumping units. You know that if you tech at the beginning, those six zealots will vaporize you, so you have to build sunken colonies. The game becomes a fairly narrow tactical experience.

Only in a very even match will players last long enough to have established bases that are producing resources and presenting strategic targets to the enemy.

In larger-scale games, like X2, you have working factories and fleets of transport ships that are developed and used while being largely unmolested. Attacks are often unpredictable, and so your strategy has more the feel of a business, weighing costs and benefits, than a simple military operation.

In conclusion, the turtle and the general both exist in a world where assault and defense are the only viable behavior types. They're simply the epitome of the extremes. If the world changes to allow other, more nuanced play styles, they will inevitably arise.

Quote:

That's besides the point, I've seen the basic principle used in other contexts as well, using a barracks or some other tough building to cover a ground unit and make it harder to target, and thus drastically increasing its lifespan.

My point was that it isn't anywhere close to game-breaking.

Quote:

I agree it can be fun to have a certain amount of micromanagement to add a level of twitch gameplay into the mix. But I don't agree that the only way an RTS can be fun is to rely so heavily on twitch. I'd like to see RTS games that place a greater emphasis on strategy too. Perhaps a lot of people would find it dull, but I think a lot of other people would find it interesting too.

I wouldn't be so quick to call it "twitch gameplay". That implies lack (or absence of) thought required, but the fact is that microing a tank + vulture push versus zealot + dragoon does require a great deal of strategy and split-second thinking. It isn't the kind that you are thinking of, of course.


I think the real difference between us is that you want a slower paced game that doesn't require many split-second decisions or much multi-tasking but that gives you time to think over what you are going to do, but I like (as well the legions of fans of the Starcraft pro scene) a game that requires fast reflexes and many split-second decisions, while at the same time forcing you multitask and produce units, harass your opponent etc (which of course requires faster decision-making).

Yours is more like real war, but that doesn't mean that it is more fun. In addition, slower paced games are often unwatchable (no one wants to watch you build up your base for 20 minutes), while Starcraft (and Warcraft to a much lesser extent) has nationally televised leauges in Korea, which obviously helps the game's popularity.

Quote:

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage Quote: Original post by Daniel Miller Could you explain your last paragraph? Sure. Sorry to have been unclear. You always start with a town hall and fifty minerals within a short distance of your opponent. Since you always know that the total destruction of their buildings is your goal, you are working toward that constantly. Therefore, little can be gained by doing anything except scouting, rushing, and pumping units. You know that if you tech at the beginning, those six zealots will vaporize you, so you have to build sunken colonies. The game becomes a fairly narrow tactical experience. Only in a very even match will players last long enough to have established bases that are producing resources and presenting strategic targets to the enemy. In larger-scale games, like X2, you have working factories and fleets of transport ships that are developed and used while being largely unmolested. Attacks are often unpredictable, and so your strategy has more the feel of a business, weighing costs and benefits, than a simple military operation. In conclusion, the turtle and the general both exist in a world where assault and defense are the only viable behavior types. They're simply the epitome of the extremes. If the world changes to allow other, more nuanced play styles, they will inevitably arise.

I don't know whether you have played/watched Starcraft much, but I assure you that you have it all wrong. The average game length in Starcraft is 25 minutes long, with games as short as 4 minutes or as long as 2 hours. Most games, however, lie within the 15-35 minute range. Yes, many players are aggressive early on, but far and away most people don't lose that aggressiveness. In fact, the point of being aggressive is simply to slow your opponent down and force them to spend resources on defending, not to end the game right there.

I should add that it is not at all uncommon to have 50 minute games, with action really all the way from about 4 minutes until the "GG". Just because rushing is part of the game doesn't mean that you have to lose to it, all it does is add the the intensity of the game (you can't sit back and relax will building up your base).

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller I think the real difference between us is that you want a slower paced game that doesn't require many split-second decisions or much multi-tasking but that gives you time to think over what you are going to do, but I like (as well the legions of fans of the Starcraft pro scene) a game that requires fast reflexes and many split-second decisions, while at the same time forcing you multitask and produce units, harass your opponent etc (which of course requires faster decision-making).

I think you're overlooking the fact no one is saying a 'twitch game' doesn't require fast thinking, and neither are they asking to have that fast decision part removed. What *is* being said is, the 'twitch' factor means the game requires the player to be *in addition to being quick thinker* also very skilled manually, in order to convey their fast decisions to the game through its --often clumsy-- interface.

What some players would enjoy more is, if the game still required fast decisions, but if it was possible to *input* these decisions in less error-prone manner.

('clumsy interface' is obviously personal impression. Some players have what it takes to work with it, some doesn't. The problem is when being unable to cope well with interface prevents one from working with what they'd enjoy, i.e. the whole decision making part)

Twitch seems to imply an absence of strategy, instead of just "something fast-paced".

And I have no problem with being able to input decisions in a less error prone manner, as long as the player is still inputing those decisions. In fact, that is what I do want.

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller My point was that it isn't anywhere close to game-breaking.

Again, I never said it was. You're putting words into my mouth. It serves as an example of where a game strategy arises from a limitation in the interface, rather than any kind of realistic consideration. It is completely unrealistic to think that a soldier can't shoot another because there's a building hovering above his head, but that's exactly what that manouver represents.

Quote:

I think the real difference between us is that you want a slower paced game that doesn't require many split-second decisions or much multi-tasking but that gives you time to think over what you are going to do, but I like (as well the legions of fans of the Starcraft pro scene) a game that requires fast reflexes and many split-second decisions, while at the same time forcing you multitask and produce units, harass your opponent etc (which of course requires faster decision-making).

You haven't been listening. I like starcraft too. I'm not saying that the pace of it makes it a mindless clickfest. There's plenty of strategy in starcraft, and it's a fantastic game. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't play it so often.

What I am saying though, is that I don't think this fast paced gameplay is the only way to play an RTS. I would like to see a game where the strategic elements are more believable, and the gameplay places a greater emphasis on strategy than on micromanagement skills. Not necessarily to replace the current standards, but in addition.