Quote:

Original post by proveren I hate starcraft for another reason - it really gives an advantages to zealous fanatics (not only Koreans :) ) to rule in this game, and measure some stupid rates like APS (actions per second). So, passive we should go.

To be fair, any game is going to give an advantage to 'zealous fanatics'. As a rule, the more time spent doing something, the better you're going to get at it. It's a bit unreasonable to expect a complete n00b to come along and thrash someone who's been playing a game for years.

Quote:

Original post by proveren [Slightly OFFTOPIC]: Well, I totally hated it 6-7 years ago when in Starcraft I attack the comp with 12 battlecruisers and 8 of them immediately got locked down. Needless to say, an average player would need a minute to select every single ghost and lockdown every single battlecruiser without choosing anthing twice. Also, (not wanting to offend anyone) I hate starcraft for another reason - it really gives an advantages to zealous fanatics (not only Koreans :) ) to rule in this game, and measure some stupid rates like APS (actions per second). So, passive we should go.

The reason Starcraft is still so strong (this was from about two weeks ago):




... is because: with the insane amount of speed and multitasking ability required, there is always room to improve (even for the progamers who play 10 hours a day), and it becomes easier to appriciate what's going on when you know how intense the game is.


No other RTS (or any game, really) is as popular as Broodwar becuase it is so fast and is so fun to watch.

Outlive allows the player to leave use of special abilities upto the units and AI within specific parameters if he wants to or control their use himself, though the game never ran all-to well on my system. Most RTS games to me seem to lack Strategy, starcraft for instance is more about who has the most units the fastest rather than how you use them, though the game is still quite fun. ;)

BW is cool because it's a mix: you have to think quickly and you have to think strategically. Just one isn't good enough.

For all those complaining about action speed, active or passive abilities don't make any difference. Players still have a time constraint in which to perform actions, so even if there are *no* units with active abilities, the game will be won by whoever can produce units the fastest and direct them with the most precision.

As for the initial question, it's really dependent on the style of RTS game you want to produce. Having active abilities allows for greater micro-management, but may draw the focus of your game away from what you intend.

Quote:

Original post by Argus2 For all those complaining about action speed, active or passive abilities don't make any difference. Players still have a time constraint in which to perform actions, so even if there are *no* units with active abilities, the game will be won by whoever can produce units the fastest and direct them with the most precision.

Exactly why I only really play turn based strategy games anymore. Too little strategy left in those 3rd person shooters.

Quote:

Original post by Telastyn Quote: Original post by Argus2 For all those complaining about action speed, active or passive abilities don't make any difference. Players still have a time constraint in which to perform actions, so even if there are *no* units with active abilities, the game will be won by whoever can produce units the fastest and direct them with the most precision. Exactly why I only really play turn based strategy games anymore. Too little strategy left in those 3rd person shooters.

It's a different type of strategy. It's not the "I can take forever and finally make my move" type of strategy, it's more of a "I better learn to think quickly and make decisions on multiple fronts at once" type of strategy.

Speed adds so much depth to RTS: it means that in addition to fighting your opponent's troops, you can fight your opponent's state of mind by forcing him/her to concentrate on several things at ocne.

Speed also removes a large amount of depth, because the player does not have enough time to focus on many strategies that require great attention to detail, multiple focus areas, or fine timing. Not to mention many of the options that suddenly become unavailable to the designer due to interface issues [such as many active abilities].

But that's a different argument for a different thread?

Broodwar is all about timing (how can a TBS have that?), and there is a huge amount of strategy involved. However, you have to be able to multitask, which is what initially turns off some players.

That being said, more people find games like that fun: I don't see TBS games getting that kind of crowd.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster Quote: I don't see TBS games getting that kind of crowd. Perhaps I am a moron, but I don't see the correlation between what makes a game entertaining to watch, and what makes a game deep.

Perhaps I am a moron, but I don't see the correlation between what makes a game deep, and what makes a game good.


That being said, I can't imagine a game being deeper than Broodwar. It's difficult to explain to someone who has not seriously played, so maybe this first person video of a progamer will explain it better:

You'll want to skip past the first part with the guy speaking Korean, unless you can understand it.