Quote
"It almost sounds like you want a turn based strategy."


Now who here cringed as you read that? I know I did.
Which is ridiculous because I play a lot of star chamber (http://starchamber.net).
Why then this negative association with the word?
Because there are a lot of turn based strategy games that are slow and tedious to play. Which stands in constrast with a lot of RTS games which are fast and tedious to play.

The problem is universal. Some games have details, which require micromanagement that isn't fun at all. It isn't fun because you are doing something else than what you expected.

When you start your first starcraft multiplayer game, you expect to fight a battle that is hard initially, but you will win eventually by building a larger army. Because that's what the singleplayer game is like. In multiplayer however the efficiency of using units comes into action and things you didn't expect you had to do are required for success, such as:
*Despite intense battles, keep switching back to the homefront to make units
*Learn to take out a reaver with 6 zerglings by moving back and forward at the right time
*Learn the dropship drop shoot and lift trick. (This is a trick where you drop something and take it right back in the dropship. The dropped unit fires once and is back in the air before any attack hits it)

While in a turn based game this translates into:
*Every turn, set the tax rate at the exactly right level for each area of land where there is the best output of happiness and money
*Use your faster, longer range unit to move back 2 out of 3 turns and shoot 1 out of three turns to eventually whither down a stronger unit.

Quote:

While in a turn based game this translates into: *Every turn, set the tax rate at the exactly right level for each area of land where there is the best output of happiness and money *Use your faster, longer range unit to move back 2 out of 3 turns and shoot 1 out of three turns to eventually whither down a stronger unit.

No, because in RTS games those are fast-paced and intense, and you are having to multitask other things while doing those nifty tricks. :)

That's like saying the Mario games can be translated to a turn-based-platformer where you have to tediously more him one space every turn.

Quote:

*Learn to take out a reaver with 6 zerglings by moving back and forward at the right time *Learn the dropship drop shoot and lift trick. (This is a trick where you drop something and take it right back in the dropship. The dropped unit fires once and is back in the air before any attack hits it) While in a turn based game this translates into: *Every turn, set the tax rate at the exactly right level for each area of land where there is the best output of happiness and money *Use your faster, longer range unit to move back 2 out of 3 turns and shoot 1 out of three turns to eventually whither down a stronger unit.

Thank you for a prime example of 'not enough S'.

Quote:

Original post by Dunam The problem is universal. Some games have details, which require micromanagement that isn't fun at all. It isn't fun because you are doing something else than what you expected. When you start your first starcraft multiplayer game, you expect to fight a battle that is hard initially, but you will win eventually by building a larger army. Because that's what the singleplayer game is like. In multiplayer however the efficiency of using units comes into action and things you didn't expect you had to do are required for success, such as: *Despite intense battles, keep switching back to the homefront to make units *Learn to take out a reaver with 6 zerglings by moving back and forward at the right time *Learn the dropship drop shoot and lift trick. (This is a trick where you drop something and take it right back in the dropship. The dropped unit fires once and is back in the air before any attack hits it)

Interesting. I and thousands of other gamers find this type of gameplay very fun. Starcraft/Warcraft III have plenty of strategy, but you're hard pressed to do it while taking care of a ton of other things at the same time. You don't get to sit and think, so multi-tasking becomes a critical skill. Are you saying that this is somehow fundamentally flawed, or just not your thing?

Quote:

Original post by Dawnstrider Quote: Original post by Dunam The problem is universal. Some games have details, which require micromanagement that isn't fun at all. It isn't fun because you are doing something else than what you expected. When you start your first starcraft multiplayer game, you expect to fight a battle that is hard initially, but you will win eventually by building a larger army. Because that's what the singleplayer game is like. In multiplayer however the efficiency of using units comes into action and things you didn't expect you had to do are required for success, such as: *Despite intense battles, keep switching back to the homefront to make units *Learn to take out a reaver with 6 zerglings by moving back and forward at the right time *Learn the dropship drop shoot and lift trick. (This is a trick where you drop something and take it right back in the dropship. The dropped unit fires once and is back in the air before any attack hits it) Interesting. I and thousands of other gamers find this type of gameplay very fun. Starcraft/Warcraft III have plenty of strategy, but you're hard pressed to do it while taking care of a ton of other things at the same time. You don't get to sit and think, so multi-tasking becomes a critical skill. Are you saying that this is somehow fundamentally flawed, or just not your thing?

That's something I've noticed as well.

It's not the kind of mental challenge they were looking for, so they criticize it as being beneath them.

Multitasking and thinking quickly are very mentally challenging.

Well, the whole idea behind the real-time in real-time strategy is to give the player the feeling that they're in direct control, right? There are no layers between clicking on the marine and telling him where to go. He'll just do it. Instantly.

Turn-based games can sometimes feel like spreadsheets because they lack that. How much value it is, that's a different and interesting question.

Anyway, just make sure you're not throwing out the baby with the bath water here.

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller Quote: Original post by Dawnstrider Quote: Original post by Dunam The problem is universal. Some games have details, which require micromanagement that isn't fun at all. It isn't fun because you are doing something else than what you expected. When you start your first starcraft multiplayer game, you expect to fight a battle that is hard initially, but you will win eventually by building a larger army. Because that's what the singleplayer game is like. In multiplayer however the efficiency of using units comes into action and things you didn't expect you had to do are required for success, such as: *Despite intense battles, keep switching back to the homefront to make units *Learn to take out a reaver with 6 zerglings by moving back and forward at the right time *Learn the dropship drop shoot and lift trick. (This is a trick where you drop something and take it right back in the dropship. The dropped unit fires once and is back in the air before any attack hits it) Interesting. I and thousands of other gamers find this type of gameplay very fun. Starcraft/Warcraft III have plenty of strategy, but you're hard pressed to do it while taking care of a ton of other things at the same time. You don't get to sit and think, so multi-tasking becomes a critical skill. Are you saying that this is somehow fundamentally flawed, or just not your thing? That's something I've noticed as well. It's not the kind of mental challenge they were looking for, so they criticize it as being beneath them. Multitasking and thinking quickly are very mentally challenging.

While multitasking and thinking quickly are mentally challenging tasks, executing rote patterns is not.

More often than not the 'multi-tasking' fight isn't won by thinking better or faster, but by executing rote pattern faster [hence the OP's first point regarding hotkeys] so you can do more. Not strategy.

But we've had this discussion before.

Chess is patterns and pre-planned positions.

When you make a game real-time, however, it becomes much less "patternized", unless you count the very small things as patterns (such as dodging attacks, etc.). If we go with that definition, then FPS are patterns as well.

Just because a game is fast-paced doesn't mean it doesn't have things such as macro-level troop production, macro-level troop positioning, resource aquisition, map control, etc. It just means you have to do all of those things at the same time. :P


edit: I'll give you the last word after this, I hate this argument. :P

And both chess, and FPS games are by far better at those little patterns and placing players in situations to compete, rather than lose because they didn't happen to be paying attention at the right spot at the right time, or execute these little exploits of unit AI.

All together now...

"The more an RTS resembles StarCraft, the better it is."

The point is that Dexter's trying to make a game that can't be won in under seven minutes with six zerglings and gosu micro. I agree with him, because I always get stormed by zeals before my second vult shows up, and then I cry. I want to bring my forces to bear, not count the seconds before they pop out of gateways.

I think the pre-built base system, with the "base plots" at starting points, is terrific. Having the base building work like building a house in The Sims is also good.

I'm not sure how your unit production will work, but another aspect of rapid-fire RTS games that always puts me behind the eight ball is pumping units. I can only queue units up when I have the mins for them, but if I have the mins for four marines, I should build another barrax anyway, so I never get a break from telling the buldings to make units. I have to be forever blipping back to my base to make sure my SCVs aren't just piling resources in the CC and chuckling to themselves. Nothing like trying to fend off Mutalisk harrassment with 400 units of minerals instead of eight marines.

Let me set up parameters for my army, and have my base try to keep up with that. I'll define the units and quantities at the command center, and the outbuildings will adjust their production to keep my force active. If I take ten marines out and get them annihilated, I expect to find ten marines in the queue back at base. And don't charge me for them until production begins. Sheesh.