RTS innovations

[Lex]

That is FALSE. Micromanagement is define as management of the minutest details of various game interaction. Some micromanagement is indeed trivial. Others are far from it, as classical problem of out-micro-ing one's opponent to gain a tactial advantage is never trival or simple, as one is up against a human and all his intelligence to counter.

The fact that something can be difficult does not make it worthwhile, fucktard. The problem is that it's tedious. Some of us want to be field generals, not click-fest micromanagers. Do you think a field general walks around to all his soldiers saying things like "move two feet over to the right so you can shoot around that obstruction?"

play the total war series if you want to be field general

real time strategy is totally different. it is a combination of micro-management and strategy as well as tactics.

for example, I will take Age of Empires 3, where almost all strategic elements from reality come into play: you have to consider terrain(swamps, waters, hills, wood etc.), you can perform flanking maneuvers and all the interesting stuff; and of course you can plan your overall strategy, anything you like. but you also have to micro your units, that's the skill in it. if you don't like that, play turn-based strategy games or chess, you have more time there.

[Vendetta]

real time strategy is totally different. it is a combination of micro-management and strategy as well as tactics.

The point, for those in the audience who aren't dozy fuckers is that the micromanagement is tedious and unnecessary and could be removed by some very simple dynamic unit AI.

It's only part of the genre because back when the dinosaurs ruled the earth there simply wasn't enough processing power for units to run this kind of individual AI script.

[Darth Wong]

play the total war series if you want to be field general

real time strategy is totally different. it is a combination of micro-management and strategy as well as tactics.

And why SHOULD it be that way? What is it with all of the apologists and their heavy reliance on the "is/ought" fallacy?

for example, I will take Age of Empires 3, where almost all strategic elements from reality come into play: you have to consider terrain(swamps, waters, hills, wood etc.), you can perform flanking maneuvers and all the interesting stuff; and of course you can plan your overall strategy, anything you like. but you also have to micro your units, that's the skill in it. if you don't like that, play turn-based strategy games or chess, you have more time there.

Nice false dilemma fallacy, dipshit. Do you have any argument to make which is not some sort of fallacy? Why the fuck should the principal element of "skill" in RTS games be click speed?

PS. A typical RTS game's idea of "considering" terrain is to make you move around impassable areas.

[Lex]

play the total war series if you want to be field general

real time strategy is totally different. it is a combination of micro-management and strategy as well as tactics.

And why SHOULD it be that way? What is it with all of the apologists and their heavy reliance on the "is/ought" fallacy?

for example, I will take Age of Empires 3, where almost all strategic elements from reality come into play: you have to consider terrain(swamps, waters, hills, wood etc.), you can perform flanking maneuvers and all the interesting stuff; and of course you can plan your overall strategy, anything you like. but you also have to micro your units, that's the skill in it. if you don't like that, play turn-based strategy games or chess, you have more time there.

Nice false dilemma fallacy, dipshit. Do you have any argument to make which is not some sort of fallacy? Why the fuck should the principal element of "skill" in RTS games be click speed?

PS. A typical RTS game's idea of "considering" terrain is to make you move around impassable areas.

The term Real Time Strategy on it's own requests some sort of interaction. I admit that some people blow at MM, and therefore hate it, but if you take away this point, the genre becomes pointless anyway; then you can shift to turn based games totally, and simulate every battle there because you don't interact anyway.

Btw can you make a sentence without calling me names?
Well, what is more, you obviously didn't play any new RTS. There, you have to consider all different types of terrain as well as all kinds of possible formations. Heck, the high ground effect was featured ten years ago.

Believe me, I've played many RTS games, some of them at professional level, I know what I'm talking about. You can be the fastest clicker on the world and you will always lose. Only if you can manage to combine strategy, tacitcs and MM equally well, you can be top.

[Lex]

real time strategy is totally different. it is a combination of micro-management and strategy as well as tactics.

The point, for those in the audience who aren't dozy fuckers is that the micromanagement is tedious and unnecessary and could be removed by some very simple dynamic unit AI.

It's only part of the genre because back when the dinosaurs ruled the earth there simply wasn't enough processing power for units to run this kind of individual AI script.

I have said it, and will say it again: Play Turn Based strategy if you don't like Micro-Management. The Total War series is fucking great, I played it myself. It should suit you more.

[Darth Wong]

The term Real Time Strategy on it's own requests some sort of interaction.

So "some sort of interaction" means "your units should be so fucking stupid that you have control their every move"? Once again, you are obviously incapable of arguing without fallacies.

I admit that some people blow at MM, and therefore hate it

And here comes the Appeal to Motive fallacy ...

but if you take away this point, the genre becomes pointless anyway; then you can shift to turn based games totally, and simulate every battle there because you don't interact anyway.

And back to the False Dilemma fallacy, as if you can't combine elements of the two genres ...

Btw can you make a sentence without calling me names?

And of course, no dipshit argument is complete without the Style over Substance fallacy ...

Well, what is more, you obviously didn't play any new RTS. There, you have to consider all different types of terrain as well as all kinds of possible formations. Heck, the high ground effect was featured ten years ago.

So why don't all modern games feature units on high ground having much longer view radius then?

Believe me, I've played many RTS games, some of them at professional level, I know what I'm talking about. You can be the fastest clicker on the world and you will always lose. Only if you can manage to combine strategy, tacitcs and MM equally well, you can be top.

And this refutes the point ... how?

[Vendetta]

The term Real Time Strategy on it's own requests some sort of interaction. I admit that some people blow at MM, and therefore hate it, but if you take away this point, the genre becomes pointless anyway; then you can shift to turn based games totally, and simulate every battle there because you don't interact anyway.

Since when is micromanagement the "point" of RTS games? Strategy, fuckwit boy! Strategy is not the small scale individual positions of your troops and their precise second to second actions, it is the manoeuvres which allow you to get your troops into a superior position before engaging in battle at all.

Even at a tactical level, what passes for "interaction" in real time micromanagement games is "making your idiot troops do the fucking obvious". This is not entertaining. It's stupid. Strategy is almost completely irrelevant in these games, because superior micromanagement will always overcome the inherent crapness of the unit AI, even from a strategically inferior position.

Btw can you make a sentence without calling me names?

No, shiteyes.

Well, what is more, you obviously didn't play any new RTS. There, you have to consider all different types of terrain as well as all kinds of possible formations. Heck, the high ground effect was featured ten years ago.

Pardon me whilst I clean the jizz off my screen! High ground! It lets me see three tiles futher! Please, there really isn't any form of terrain effect in RTS games, even modern ones like Company of Heroes and SupCom. You have passable and impassable terrain, and elevation affecting view distances (addressed previously as fucking stupid when modelling any even vaguely modern combat). No terrain cover from weapons, no concealment, no entrenchment, no nothing!

Believe me, I've played many RTS games, some of them at professional level, I know what I'm talking about. You can be the fastest clicker on the world and you will always lose. Only if you can manage to combine strategy, tacitcs and MM equally well, you can be top.

Believe me, I've played more than just point and click idiot simulators. What passes for "strategy" in these games is actually just the mechanical repetition of fucking obvious choices.

I have said it, and will say it again: Play Turn Based strategy if you don't like Micro-Management. The Total War series is fucking great, I played it myself. It should suit you more.

I do. I would also like RTS games not to suck quite so much. This is not an either/or situation.

[Lex]

The term Real Time Strategy on it's own requests some sort of interaction.

So "some sort of interaction" means "your units should be so fucking stupid that you have control their every move"? Once again, you are obviously incapable of arguing without fallacies.

I admit that some people blow at MM, and therefore hate it

And here comes the Appeal to Motive fallacy ...

but if you take away this point, the genre becomes pointless anyway; then you can shift to turn based games totally, and simulate every battle there because you don't interact anyway.

And back to the False Dilemma fallacy, as if you can't combine elements of the two genres ...

Btw can you make a sentence without calling me names?

And of course, no dipshit argument is complete without the Style over Substance fallacy ...

Well, what is more, you obviously didn't play any new RTS. There, you have to consider all different types of terrain as well as all kinds of possible formations. Heck, the high ground effect was featured ten years ago.

So why don't all modern games feature units on high ground having much longer view radius then?

Believe me, I've played many RTS games, some of them at professional level, I know what I'm talking about. You can be the fastest clicker on the world and you will always lose. Only if you can manage to combine strategy, tacitcs and MM equally well, you can be top.

And this refutes the point ... how?

Units in RTS are not that stupid. And with different stances(attack, hold ground, defensive etc.) you can control what they do. But it is true that they do not hit their "designated" target, and that they do not use their special ability without order. But I will repeat myself: the genre you desire exists; TBS. Real time strategy involes MM, like it or not.

Yes you could comibe them, but then it ain't RTS any longer. But I do believe that there's a reason that those two genres emerged "victorious", and the mixed version didn't. Combining them is like taking the best elements of each away.

As for the line of sight: Because it is extremely hard to implement. Units have a designated LOS(see unit stats), having that changed by ground is very difficult as it would require some sort of "dynamic" unit. This leads to millions over millions of bugs and requires huge computer capacities.

And finally: If you want more "global" strategies, then you are wrong in RTS again, because the battlefields are comparably small. Only a limited strategy is required, tactics and MM are more important. Yet again, TBS is what you obviously seek.

I'll get back to you again tomorrow, as I've got soccer training now, sorry!

PS: Can't you maintain style and substance? Just curious...

[Lex]

The term Real Time Strategy on it's own requests some sort of interaction. I admit that some people blow at MM, and therefore hate it, but if you take away this point, the genre becomes pointless anyway; then you can shift to turn based games totally, and simulate every battle there because you don't interact anyway.

Since when is micromanagement the "point" of RTS games? Strategy, fuckwit boy! Strategy is not the small scale individual positions of your troops and their precise second to second actions, it is the manoeuvres which allow you to get your troops into a superior position before engaging in battle at all.

Even at a tactical level, what passes for "interaction" in real time micromanagement games is "making your idiot troops do the fucking obvious". This is not entertaining. It's stupid. Strategy is almost completely irrelevant in these games, because superior micromanagement will always overcome the inherent crapness of the unit AI, even from a strategically inferior position.

Btw can you make a sentence without calling me names?

No, shiteyes.

Well, what is more, you obviously didn't play any new RTS. There, you have to consider all different types of terrain as well as all kinds of possible formations. Heck, the high ground effect was featured ten years ago.

Pardon me whilst I clean the jizz off my screen! High ground! It lets me see three tiles futher! Please, there really isn't any form of terrain effect in RTS games, even modern ones like Company of Heroes and SupCom. You have passable and impassable terrain, and elevation affecting view distances (addressed previously as fucking stupid when modelling any even vaguely modern combat). No terrain cover from weapons, no concealment, no entrenchment, no nothing!

Believe me, I've played many RTS games, some of them at professional level, I know what I'm talking about. You can be the fastest clicker on the world and you will always lose. Only if you can manage to combine strategy, tacitcs and MM equally well, you can be top.

Believe me, I've played more than just point and click idiot simulators. What passes for "strategy" in these games is actually just the mechanical repetition of fucking obvious choices.

I have said it, and will say it again: Play Turn Based strategy if you don't like Micro-Management. The Total War series is fucking great, I played it myself. It should suit you more.

I do. I would also like RTS games not to suck quite so much. This is not an either/or situation.

See above. Your points almost mirror Darth Wong one's one to one.

[Darth Wong]

Units in RTS are not that stupid. And with different stances(attack, hold ground, defensive etc.) you can control what they do. But it is true that they do not hit their "designated" target, and that they do not use their special ability without order. But I will repeat myself: the genre you desire exists; TBS. Real time strategy involes MM, like it or not.

Bullshit. There is nothing about the concept of a RTS game which inherently requires micromanagement.

Yes you could comibe them, but then it ain't RTS any longer. But I do believe that there's a reason that those two genres emerged "victorious", and the mixed version didn't. Combining them is like taking the best elements of each away.

Outright lie. There is no reason why an RTS game must require micromanagement, nor is there any reason to conclude that it would no longer be an RTS game without it.

As for the line of sight: Because it is extremely hard to implement. Units have a designated LOS(see unit stats), having that changed by ground is very difficult as it would require some sort of "dynamic" unit. This leads to millions over millions of bugs and requires huge computer capacities.

You spew more shit every minute. You honestly think that computers which move fully rendered 3D texture-mapped models of combat units around onscreen while controlling all kinds of other parameters couldn't handle a simple LOS multiplier based on altitude? Ooooh, "millions over millions of bugs" and "huge computer capacities"

And finally: If you want more "global" strategies, then you are wrong in RTS again, because the battlefields are comparably small. Only a limited strategy is required, tactics and MM are more important. Yet again, TBS is what you obviously seek.

Yet again, you pretend that it's impossible to combine aspects of both genres.

I'll get back to you again tomorrow, as I've got soccer training now, sorry!

PS: Can't you maintain style and substance? Just curious...

I can, if the person deserves it. You don't.

[Vendetta]

Units in RTS are not that stupid. And with different stances(attack, hold ground, defensive etc.) you can control what they do. But it is true that they do not hit their "designated" target, and that they do not use their special ability without order. But I will repeat myself: the genre you desire exists; TBS. Real time strategy involes MM, like it or not.

Again with the is/ought fallacy. Just because RTS's now are stupid does not mean they should remain stupid.

Yes you could comibe them, but then it ain't RTS any longer.

Care to elaborate why not, without resorting to the canard that RTS requires micromanagement.

As for the line of sight: Because it is extremely hard to implement. Units have a designated LOS(see unit stats), having that changed by ground is very difficult as it would require some sort of "dynamic" unit. This leads to millions over millions of bugs and requires huge computer capacities.

No. it really isn't. Most RTS games have 3D modelled terrain now, all you need is hitscan clipping from a given POV to see what a unit can see. It will take some processing power, but guess what, modern PCs have that. Spades of it.

And finally: If you want more "global" strategies, then you are wrong in RTS again, because the battlefields are comparably small. Only a limited strategy is required, tactics and MM are more important. Yet again, TBS is what you obviously seek.

Again, is/ought fallacy.

PS: Can't you maintain style and substance? Just curious...

Why, shiteyes? I mean you've been registered here four and a bit years, surely you should know that on SDNet you are fair game for any insults people can dream up, as long as the substance of their post is valid?

[Darth Wong]

<snip>

See above. Your points almost mirror Darth Wong one's one to one.

None of which you have answered, asshole. I point out that you are using a false dilemma fallacy, and your answer is to repeat that fallacy, over and over. I point out that you are using is/ought fallacies, and your answer is to repeat those fallacies too. I point out that real strategy is pitiful in RTS games and shoot down your attempt to provide an example of it, and you repeat the example with a pitiful excuse about how you think it would be impossible to implement something as simple as a LOS multiplier without "millions upon millions of bugs". You have utterly failed to address any of the points raised.

[SWPIGWANG]

The thing is this: Games give you limits, the player's job is to work around them better than the other player. If it takes thinking to overcome those limits, that is not stupid.

That's the fucking problem! There's only one way for that engagement to be successful, so why the fuck do we have to do it manually?

Thats the problem, there is one optimal way to win any game, why the fuck do have to play it. There should be an "I win button" instead.

You are missing what I'm saying. Just because there is the "right way" to do it, it doesn't mean it is obvious, self evident at takes no thought. The player's job is to find that solution and execute it, whether it takes 20 minutes or 5 seconds.

Yes, there are micro that are truely annoying and pointless, I'll admit, like shoot-run dancing. There are others that isn't however, and takes tactical acuman to figure out. For example, in DOW, figuring out the right path to charge a squad of guardman while avoiding melee and flamer units and using jump units to cut off retreat while the opposing force is busily dancing to avoid your attack.

Please stop conflating thinking speed and clicking speed. That you do so betrays your bias.

So that is the thing that limits your clicking speed? Your ability to move the mouse fast? Oh, Please. I've find that my limitation is that I can not think of 5 useful actions per second without losing sight of something. It doesn't happen if you can click very fast if your clicks are of a useless nature and your brain is too tied up to see the big picture.

Actually, I really do want to see what a super-autonomous RTS game will play like. You could get rid of commands like "move" or "attack" and use more high-level commands such as "assault area".....

Play HOI?

I've mused about a realtime game like squad-level wargames for some time - where you give orders down one level of command (in this case, squad leaders) and they have an AI that determines how that 'squad leader'......

What I don't see is "why bother" (aside from the immersion factor). It is infinitely easier to just abstract the unit. Look at TBS games, they've been doing it for years. To simulate a company in TBS games don't involve modeling AI for five dozen people and keeping track of 500 hidden statistics that the player can not see or interact with. No, you as the commander is given this box with some numbers filled in on a map.

Whats wrong with just having a box with a set of numbers like "number of man", "organization level", "terrain modifier", "morale"....etc? The end game play result is the same after all.

Now, what I was talking about micro is that I thought that in game design, everything that the player is give control over is something that is intended for the player to control! The game give you 40 stupid infantry man unit and gives you control of movement and fire down to the mili-second is because the game intends that you control those troops directly. If it does not, it can just abstract it with a functional equvalent of a box on a map.

If you want 40 infantry man on the map but controlled by AI and is for all intends and purposes "an abstract box", it is just eye-candy and is no more strategic than a properally made box abstraction.

Just because it has high technology does not mean it provides superior game play beyond what is now possible.

The problem is that it's tedious. Some of us want to be field generals, not click-fest micromanagers. Do you think a field general walks around to all his soldiers saying things like "move two feet over to the right so you can shoot around that obstruction?"

Field generals do not command by looking over the entire zoomable battlefield and have instaneous radio links to every unit either. If you want to play the role of a field general, just abstract everything into a box like how they really do it. In real life, to the commander the details of combat, "micro" is hidden and abstracted. AI is not needed.

----

But really, the very structure of "traditional RTS" is against the "field general" and only changing things like AI would not effect it very much. The problem is simply that the player is given far more responsibility and far more directly controllable units (due to exponential unit growth) and far more detailed control than a real field general. In most cases they are not designed to model general, instead they are made with an abstract omni-present micro god, which fits in the theme of 30 minutes nukes from 4 peons.

The better approach is to think of ways to somehow limit the number of "clickable objects" in the game and reduce the requirement for micro in individual unit interactions from the ground up. (which may or may not be done with AI) All that has been done already in some games. It is a far more effective approach than try to shoestring such thing into an traditional RTS by throwing AI into it.

Start by adding at 8~12 second (random) time delay to unit response time. Now that would kill most "traditional micro" dead in its tracks. Following that, add a "Rise of Nations" style focus fire damage penality (if you click an a target as opposed to attack move, you lose 30% of attack power) and increase unit battle engagement time.........ah so many things that can do the same thing.


But really, if that is the kind of game play desired, why not just play TBS?
It fulfills all requirements set up in here. If the point isn't player time management, then TBS is technologically easier(more processor time for tac AI too), more scalable (can have more or less units without making it too busy to lax) and can be no less immersive if done right. (with a stop-time input system like in the Combat Mission series, where the game interacts in a real time manner but pauses every minute for the player to input commands)

[Pint0 Xtreme]

And finally: If you want more "global" strategies, then you are wrong in RTS again, because the battlefields are comparably small. Only a limited strategy is required, tactics and MM are more important. Yet again, TBS is what you obviously seek.

Didn't Supreme Commander just show that it's possible to have RTS games on a massive scale?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Actually, I really do want to see what a super-autonomous RTS game will play like. You could get rid of commands like "move" or "attack" and use more high-level commands such as "assault area".....

Play HOI?

If you're talking about Hearts of Iron, no I have not played it. But after some investigation, it hardly represents my example.

[SirNitram]

The worst part is, fiddling around, you find shreds and scraps of these ideas throughout games. They're not impossible.

While high-iniative troops aren't possible yet, Dawn of War had stances which offered less micro; the troops could be told to stand exactly where they are(Typically used for cover or weapons which require set-up times, for bracing), or chase a little ways, or just chase anything they spot.

We can't tell troops to only target X for a while, but the C&C games had a roundabout way of preventing a troop from targetting a tank(Reset their weapon damage to 0% against a particular armour type and they won't waste their shots).

And so forth. It's all so blatantly possible, but not done yet. Even automated base building(Dark Crusade's single player has the chance to enter a province with a partially built base).

[Darth Wong]

The thing is this: Games give you limits, the player's job is to work around them better than the other player.

This is a totally irrelevant statement in a debate over whether the current set of limits is a good one. See my earlier point about arbitrarily adding even more pointless manual actions in order to further complicate the interface. Your argument fits it perfectly. Maybe you should be forced to play the game while standing on one foot and juggling; after all, it's a "skill" and you have to find a way to work around it!

Now, what I was talking about micro is that I thought that in game design, everything that the player is give control over is something that is intended for the player to control!

The fact that this behaviour is intentional does not mean it is the way all RTS games should be, moron.

The problem is that it's tedious. Some of us want to be field generals, not click-fest micromanagers. Do you think a field general walks around to all his soldiers saying things like "move two feet over to the right so you can shoot around that obstruction?"

Field generals do not command by looking over the entire zoomable battlefield and have instaneous radio links to every unit either.

Actually, with modern drones, a field general can have a surprising amount of information about the precise locations of actual units on the battlefield. But hey, you're obviously just in "mindless apologist" mode anyway, so feel free to believe that you somehow refuted the point with this objection even though it didn't address the point at all.

But really, if that is the kind of game play desired, why not just play TBS?

I see that you've latched onto this false dilemma fallacy too. I love the way people keep pointing out that it's a fallacy and retards like you keep repeating it anyway. It's like debating religious people.

[Vendetta]

That's the fucking problem! There's only one way for that engagement to be successful, so why the fuck do we have to do it manually?

Thats the problem, there is one optimal way to win any game, why the fuck do have to play it. There should be an "I win button" instead.

You are missing what I'm saying. Just because there is the "right way" to do it, it doesn't mean it is obvious, self evident at takes no thought. The player's job is to find that solution and execute it, whether it takes 20 minutes or 5 seconds.

The thing is that in any decently strategic game there is not only one optimal way to win, there are a number of possible ways to win. Chess, for example, has 10^123 possible legal games. I very much doubt you could find as many separate games on a given Starcraft map, because on any given map at any given time there is a single optimal thing to be doing, whether it's babysitting your SCVs or microing a set of units to win an engagement they're too stupid to handle on their own.

Really, what you seem to believe is worthwhile strategy is actually leftover bullshit from when computers couldn't do this kind of useful automation.

[SWPIGWANG]

The thing is that in any decently strategic game there is not only one optimal way to win, there are a number of possible ways to win. Chess, for example, has 10^123 possible legal games.

Okay, I misspoke. I should have said finding out one solution to win the game.

IF you calcuate the numbers of permutations of all possible RTS moves, it would exceed chess by an huge amount.

In anycase, the Chess is fundamentally a game where there is a one optimal set of path that ensures the best outcome. The only problem is that we do not have culture mind level or processing power and have not solved the entire game. If given enough processing power, the game gets reduced to inputs to a finite state machine.

In a game like Starcraft or what not, there is no optimal path found either. All 3 races are being played at the top level, and there is half a dozen build orders from the very start, together with thousands of minor details that all have an impact on the game, like the placement of buildings, the timing of tech, to the unit mixes and so on. If the game is really dead obvious, than everyone would play one race, use one strat and do one micro.

Actually, with modern drones, a field general can have a surprising amount of information about the precise locations of actual units on the battlefield. But hey, you're obviously just in "mindless apologist" mode anyway, so feel free to believe that you somehow refuted the point with this objection even though it didn't address the point at all.

Are you telling me that a real life general cares about whether or not that one infantry man is 5 meters away from the desitination and will make decisions taking into account of every sub-meter position of troops of hundreds of troops? Not really, and most of that information is fivous as a general could not track hundreds of units down to the meter and use have those minor position things be decisive. The general could obtain this information, but it is really just pointless information overload if he tries. I believe that is what you all are saying about micro, that there is too much pointless detail for the supposed level of command (though games follow no real life logic), am I not right?

In terms of command, individual units are commanded through abstractions. The general sends a command to a subcommander, which sends it to the company, the platoon and the squad. To the general, the "interface" he has is the few commanders under him. Everything below it is abstracted as the general do not control it, only view the results.

If you want an game to play the general, one only needs to model the "interface" with subcommanders and everything below it is just "results generation." The results can be generated in whatever way as long as it produce the desired input-output. Whether you make a 500 variable AI for 300 men or a simple numerical mapping, it is not that different.

Bullshit. There is nothing about the concept of a RTS game which inherently requires micromanagement.

The concept of RTS inherently involves time-constrained management, in some form or another, like an FPS involves aiming at the enemy. If there is no time constraint and the player can be as slow as he wants, where is the real-time in that?

A RTS do not need stupid units or anything, but a RTS should reward fast thinkers. The interface should be easy enough that fast thinkers can convert thoughts into action effectively.

However an RTS should not equalize fast and slow thinkers.

If you opponent is thinking and acting faster than you can respond, one should not whine "argggggg, slow the game down, slow the game down, there is no strategy. He is just merely being fast." A RTS is based on the thinking speed dual.

Yes, you can make the player think about different things than how to untangle traffic jams quickly or holding back suicidially stupid units, but you'd better provide something, something for the fast thinker and fast player to benefit from. When it comes down to it, getting more useful commands in should be the critical skill in RTS games.

When you think in that way, than the stated goal of some Ai proponents contradicts the basic RTS concept. They want to make the game so that someone that thinks 5 times slower can fight on a even level. What the hell is up with that.


It probably make sense to have the requirement instead be: "every action the player makes should be non-trival." However like I said before, given finite time and mutiple, balanced control choices, deciding what to control is the critical non-trivial choice.

[Medic]

Look SWPIGWANG, I'm a huge Starcraft fan as you MIGHT notice your primary critic HSRTG was too. (comment to the effect of "I had 4000 maps before I quit Starcraft)

I mentioned that being a clickfest champion has it's own appeal; both the feeling and the actual relevant skills involved are close to the twitch-reflex accuracy of FPS'ers. Big surprise then that I've put a lot of time into both Starcraft and close-range deathfest FPS's.

But the micro-fest skill in ENTIRELY dependent on APM. What does this mean? Well it means that unless you're one of the best players in the world then you're never gonna do this. NEVER!

Chunsang has seven Battlecruisers, while Boxer has eleven Wraiths...and seven Ghosts. Boxer drops off the Ghosts on the edge and proceeds to lockdown all seven Battlecruisers in the span of one second. He then cleans up the helpless Battlecruisers with his Wraiths. Boxer's losses: one or two Ghosts. Chunsang's losses: 2800 minerals and 2100 gas within twenty seconds.

To the non-Starcraft players the point should be obvious, without dredging up more resource counts and supply numbers, suffice to say, it was a lopsided victory. In such a long game, it wasn't a turning point but APM IS THE ONLY THING THAT ALLOWS THAT TO HAPPEN.

The APM-barrier further means that there is a natural handicap between a 90-APM average player and a 150-APM average player. The consensus I usually saw in threads on Starcraft fan sites was that while APM != better player, it helps. A LOT. When both players have common knowledge of the game, APM is a tie breaker. Doing more tasks per minute translates directly into your ability to expand, remembering to increase your industrial output as your economy expands, but most importantly, PLAYERS WITH THE HIGHEST APM'S CAN MICRO BUT ALSO SPEND MOST OF THEIR MONEY VERY QUICKLY. It is a physical skill, APM, above all else.

It has it's own appeal and I've played enough Starcraft to know of the strategy that is involved, but I'm not defending it's flaws, because it IS retarded to have a machine gunner shoot at tanks, or as I'm sure you're aware, Vultures shooting at Ultralisks when you can't micro them. (and please, do NOT point out vultures are relevant in TvZ strategy. We know you know a lot about Starcraft, we GET that) I happen to like the 'conventional' RTS but they especially are long overdue for some very basic changes that will cut into the vicious click-fest. Entirely different RTS's have an appeal I freely admit isn't my thing, but I'm not disparaging them either because I can respect the utter despisal of physical skill being often more relevant than a keen tactical and strategic sense.

[Vendetta]

In anycase, the Chess is fundamentally a game where there is a one optimal set of path that ensures the best outcome. The only problem is that we do not have culture mind level or processing power and have not solved the entire game. If given enough processing power, the game gets reduced to inputs to a finite state machine.

In a game like Starcraft or what not, there is no optimal path found either. All 3 races are being played at the top level, and there is half a dozen build orders from the very start, together with thousands of minor details that all have an impact on the game, like the placement of buildings, the timing of tech, to the unit mixes and so on. If the game is really dead obvious, than everyone would play one race, use one strat and do one micro.

I see you missed that number of legal games of chess. It's not a half dozen, it's not thousands, it's ten to the power of one hundred and twenty three.. The only way you could argue that there are "more legal games" of Starcraft is considering truly trivial and useless but technically "legal" positionings arising from the player controlled unit building.

And that's only Chess. Go, with an even simpler ruleset, has 1.7X10^733 legal games.

Thousands of detailed no-brain decisions, like "what are my SCVs doing, could they be working more intelligently" are still no brain decisions.

And as SPC Brungardt mentioned, the use of ghost lockdown, at the moment it's a feature that benefits people who can click faster. With an initiative slider of, say, a set combat power before the ghost will automatically use lockdown, it's still under the player's strategic control, but doesn't consume their time clicking on the interface again and again, which is not fun, it's mechanistic and stupid. If I want to experience repetitive actions without conscious thought, I'll have a wank, they're more pleasurable.

[SirNitram]

However an RTS should not equalize fast and slow thinkers.

1) Support this naked assertion.

2) Support your unstated assumption that 'Fast thinker' == 'Clickfest Whore'.

[Nephtys]

Honestly, the only people who think RTS games are about microing to that extent are those who don't bother to look beyond Blizzard Products, which really are a sort of dreck in terms of RTS variety.

"Oh look, each one of my units has special abilities that can't be used unless I can click like a madman. And if I don't use them, I lose!"

Take a few other RTS for example, such as again, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, Total Annhiliation, even the C&C's. Your 'micro' there is largely maneuver, with at worst an ability button you click rarely, such as calling in a superweapon strike. In these games (the first three especially), maneuver is your form of Micro.

And no, you don't need 90 clicks a minute to do it even.

[Lex]

<snip>

See above. Your points almost mirror Darth Wong one's one to one.

None of which you have answered, asshole. I point out that you are using a false dilemma fallacy, and your answer is to repeat that fallacy, over and over. I point out that you are using is/ought fallacies, and your answer is to repeat those fallacies too. I point out that real strategy is pitiful in RTS games and shoot down your attempt to provide an example of it, and you repeat the example with a pitiful excuse about how you think it would be impossible to implement something as simple as a LOS multiplier without "millions upon millions of bugs". You have utterly failed to address any of the points raised.

God you're on stupid dumb fuck, if I may resort to your language.

The point is: you suck at RTS games and that's why you can't quit whining about them. I personally think that AoE or Warcraft series are more or less perfect, or why do you think so many people play them? Because they are all nerds right?

You are the one who keeps repetating things. You just wont accept that no one but you and three or four others in this forum believe that a real time strategy game is about positioning your troops and then letting them win the fight on their own, dipshit. All your arguements so far base on your own assumptions, nothing else. What YOU believe is correct, everthing else is obviously wrong.

Things like terrain, formations, unit stances are considered in all modern RTS games and add a formidable tactical depth. You whine about units being stupid, well, you should rather watch a movie instead of playing games, because you dont want to interact anyway. Your ideas of a "perfect" RTS are laughable, and you will be told so by any more dedicated player.

No one, not even yourself which I'm fucking certain of, would enjoy the game you want to create for more than one hour.

Of course, you will answer "ydadadada dipshit yadadadada you miss the point dipshit yadadada", and thus I'm gonna leave this thread for good before I get myself banned or something alike.

[SWPIGWANG]

I see you missed that number of legal games of chess. It's not a half dozen, it's not thousands, it's ten to the power of one hundred and twenty three.. The only way you could argue that there are "more legal games" of Starcraft is considering truly trivial and useless but technically "legal" positionings arising from the player controlled unit building.

And that's only Chess. Go, with an even simpler ruleset, has 1.7X10^733 legal games.

The vast number of those actions is sucidical in those games. The set of usable moves is far less. The same is true for starcraft.

But if there is one thing that micro teaches us, there is no such thing called trivial unit positioning. Alot of micro is all about that positioning and it has massive effects on the outcome. (usually averaged out over time however, given impossibility to control them accurate enough) If you hold that few, than 256x256 tile map with dozens of units and hundreds of movement at once for unlimited game length would yield simply absurd numbers.

The APM-barrier further means that there is a natural handicap between a 90-APM average player and a 150-APM average player

It depends how you view APM. To me it is simply something to strategize around. For example, you know your APM can't manage marines, you build mass goliath instead, or play protoss. It doesn't remove the importance of strategy, only that it adds another not always balanced factor into it. I don't see that APM as an natural, insurmountable barrier and I think most people who have trained themselves can all do reasonablely well.

When both players have common knowledge of the game, APM is a tie breaker. Doing more tasks per minute translates directly into your ability to expand, remembering to increase your industrial output as your economy expands, but most importantly, PLAYERS WITH THE HIGHEST APM'S CAN MICRO BUT ALSO SPEND MOST OF THEIR MONEY VERY QUICKLY. It is a physical skill, APM, above all else.

Its both a physical and intellectual skill. Remember to expand, to control industrial output, to keep track of all the units on the map and everything is mentally taxing. The ability to think with so many threads at once is what makes a good player.

I have nothing against interfaces that allows the player to do more with less clicks. I am against designs that wants the player to do less.

I don't mind having an interface where say, you can control a squad of ghosts to lock down with three clicks as opposed to ~20 or so. However I do not want AI to do lockdown decision for me. It removes something that I should be aware and do.

Remember, it is "actions per minute", not "clicks per minute." A good interface should let everyone to have massive action per minute, letting everyone being able to do exactly what they want to do and think of without getting bogged down by things like mouse control skill. However it should not remove the need for action per minute. Action per minute is what encodes what the player thinks into the game.