next »

[s0]

I am more intelligent than those primitive twitchmonkeys cuz I play deep and complex strategy games. Dwarf Fortress should be used as an IQ test.

[J-Snake]

I know you are best, you don't need to comment on each post:P

[s0]

Not necessarily responding to you, but it's the general tone I've been noticing in this thread.

[iffi]

Is the feasibility of controlling games using thoughts even relevant to the topic? The main point is that games such as Starcraft emphasize quick fingers more than quick and clever strategizing. It's not necessarily thought-driven controls that are needed to make an RTS focused on strategy rather than finger dexterity. It's probably possible to create an interface that would emphasize strategy and minimize the challenge in actually executing those strategies, at least more so than Starcraft does, but Blizzard probably didn't want to change the interface or core gameplay of Starcraft 2 too much from Starcraft, which is why it remains the twitchy "action strategy" the first Starcraft was.
Speaking of control interfaces, have you heard of Tom Clancy's EndWar? It allows you to control your units by voice, through a headset, and although I've never played it, from what I've heard it's got nice controls for a console RTS (though the game itself is kind of lackluster). Edit: According to Wikipedia, it's actually an RTT (real-time tactics) game, but I think it's close enough to be relevant.

[Fallsburg]

I think part of the problem is that people think that the word strategy means something other than it actually does. 
Strategy == Plan of Action
Tactics == The Maneuvering of Forces In Battle

Most real time strategy games are exactly that, ones that rewards strategy but tend to ignore tactics (or at least make them less importance).

If I go into a Starcraft II match as Zerg, I need to have a definite plan on how I'm going to get my Roaches and take out the enemy.  The actual tactics of the situation matter a lot less than the plan I have going in.  That isn't to say that the tactical maneuvers and decisions one can make in Starcraft are irrelevant, but they are definitely a second order effect.

I think what Core Xii wants is a real-time tactics game not a real-time strategy game.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i still think it's weird to say that you can have a game with a real-time element where playing the game quickly doesn't matter. it's metaphysically impossible to create a game where thinking quickly matters and acting quickly doesn't, because you need to tell the game your thoughts somehow. even if it's a thought-computer interface, your speed in the game will be limited by how effectively you engage with that interface, and there will still be people who are more skilled than others at inputting their directives to the game.

another thing is, if i can be diamond in sc2 with 30 apm, which is like the top 1% of all players while only clicking or pressing a button an average of once every two seconds, speed isn't *that* important. of course you can't really compete in high-level tournaments if you're as slow at sc2 as i am, but you can still beat 99% of the population without being any faster than average, or even being much slower than average.

i just think this is another example of people talking about something they don't actually know too much about. what is said here is somewhat fair if we're talking about sc1, but sc2 has a large number of changes which make it easy to play it well slowly, such as hotkeying groups of buildings, auto-mining, hotkeying an almost infinite number of troops instead of limiting it to groups of 12, tab changing between types of units when hotkeying large groups, and so on. typing at a reasonable rate (the basic 60 wpm required for a secretarial job, for instance) takes a lot more speed than being in the top 1% of sc2 players does.

plus, if speed were all that mattered, the winners of tournaments would simply be the fastest players, which has never been the case, even in starcraft 1. professional starcraft 1 players are all fast, but they range from about about 150apm to 400apm, and in any given tournament that difference doesn't matter all that much. anyone can press buttons really fast, and it doesn't make you good at the game. a base minimum of speed is required to compete at the very top level, and that base minimum is higher than what the average person is used to playing games at, but a) that base minimum can be reached in about 100 hours of practice, and b) why would you want to compete internationally anyway? getting in the top 1% of all players seems good enough for most purposes, and that can be done without any speed increase at all.

[Core Xii]

It's probably possible to create an interface that would emphasize strategy and minimize the challenge in actually executing those strategies

Absolutely - I think this is exactly how Chess works. The moves are extremely simple, all you gotta do is point to a piece and then where to move it, taking turns with your opponent. Yet, Chess is one of the most strategic games ever conceived.

The problem with StarCraft is that the interface mechanics are too complicated/manual. For even something extremely simple like moving your units, you need to select them using hotkeys, box-select, etc. then click where you want them to go, making sure you don't accidentally click on anything else while at it... Such an overly complex sequence of commands for something as simple as moving a unit around.

As an example of my own work into remedying this curse that has plagued RTS' for years, in the RTS I'm developing, all you need to do is draw a line from the unit you want to move, to the destination. Just a quick jab of the mouse, starting near the unit, drawing a path you wish them to travel and ending at the destination. It's less precise, since other nearby units might interpret the order too, but if you have to do stuff quick (your guys are dying!) StarCraft doesn't have that option to sacrifice accuracy for immediacy.

I still haven't efficiently solved the problem of moving around the battlefield as rapidly as possible, so most of the time is still wasted into locating the unit. However, you can issue the order on the minimap just as well as on the main view; Again, trading precision for speed of execution.

Strategy == Plan of Action
Tactics == The Maneuvering of Forces In Battle

[...]

I think what Core Xii wants is a real-time tactics game not a real-time strategy game.

No. The problem here is that for both strategy as well as tactics, the interface is clunky. Tactics doesn't imply twitch-based gameplay any more than strategy does.

i still think it's weird to say that you can have a game with a real-time element where playing the game quickly doesn't matter. it's metaphysically impossible to create a game where thinking quickly matters and acting quickly doesn't, because you need to tell the game your thoughts somehow. even if it's a thought-computer interface, your speed in the game will be limited by how effectively you engage with that interface, and there will still be people who are more skilled than others at inputting their directives to the game.

I agree with everything you're saying. How is it in conflict with anything I've said? This is exactly my point, strategy games should aim to minimize this interface lag. StarCraft does not (not nearly enough, anyhow).

sc2 has a large number of changes which make it easy to play it well slowly, such as hotkeying groups of buildings, auto-mining, hotkeying an almost infinite number of troops instead of limiting it to groups of 12, tab changing between types of units when hotkeying large groups, and so on.

Yes, it made certain improvements to its predecessor. I'd also include auto-casting of spells to that list. But, it also introduced more micro-elements that make it more twitchy than ever. A Zerg player's proficiency is directly tied to his ability to repetitively spawn larvae with queens, advance creep tumors, etc. All of which could have been automated intelligently, yet weren't. An almost identical mechanic extends to Terran and Protoss with orbital command energy for mules and warp gate cooldown.

There is absolutely no excuse for why I shouldn't be able to, for instance, issue the order that you, queen, spawn larvae whenever you can on this hatchery, or all creep tumors spread automatically towards this location. Blizzard is un-innovative, lazy, and bad at developing games.

plus, if speed were all that mattered, [...]

Nobody was arguing that in StarCraft only speed mattered. What I'm arguing is that it matters where it shouldn't, however little.

[Fallsburg]

No. The problem here is that for both strategy as well as tactics, the interface is clunky. Tactics doesn't imply twitch-based gameplay any more than strategy does.

Well, I never said anything about the interface. But I stand by that you don't want a strategy game, because that's what Starcraft II is.  From what you said earlier, you want a tactics game where your on the fly thinking is what wins you the game, not the overarching plan that you come in to the battle with that a strategy game requires.  But maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you said.

[s0]

@Core: What about Warhammer 40K: Dawn Of War? That's an RTS optimized for being easy and accessible to control. I thought the game itself wasn't that great because it lacked variety and strategic depth (the second one is supposed to be better but I haven't played it), but the controls/interface are definitely a step in the direction you're describing.

[iffi]

It's probably possible to create an interface that would emphasize strategy and minimize the challenge in actually executing those strategies

Absolutely - I think this is exactly how Chess works. The moves are extremely simple, all you gotta do is point to a piece and then where to move it, taking turns with your opponent. Yet, Chess is one of the most strategic games ever conceived.

Yes, the interface for a game like chess is very simple, but it doesn't really matter as much in a turn-based game, since, well, it's based on taking turns. Though with a fast clock the simplicity of chess does prove to be useful.

No. The problem here is that for both strategy as well as tactics, the interface is clunky. Tactics doesn't imply twitch-based gameplay any more than strategy does.

Well, I never said anything about the interface. But I stand by that you don't want a strategy game, because that's what Starcraft II is.  From what you said earlier, you want a tactics game where your on the fly thinking is what wins you the game, not the overarching plan that you come in to the battle with that a strategy game requires.  But maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you said.

I think Core's point is that even if you've got a plan of action, which you say is what constitutes a real-time strategy game, in a game like Starcraft it's far too clunky and difficult to actually carry out said plan. If the game is determined by who has the better plan, the game should make actually implementing one's plans as simple as possible. The goal of the interface should be to get in your way as little as possible as you carry out your plan (on how you're going to get your Roaches, for example). I don't know how much Starcraft II improved on this (the ability to select more than 12 units and multiple buildings is certainly welcome), but in Starcraft 1 there was often far more clicking to carry out certain things than was desirable.

Paul does make a good point by saying that one will always be limited by the speed at which one can act on one's thoughts. The goal here should be to maximize the efficiency of the interface so that thoughts translate into as few or as simple actions as possible, so that one's ability to navigate the interface and take action does not end up overshadowing one's plan itself.

[RCIX]

It's probably possible to create an interface that would emphasize strategy and minimize the challenge in actually executing those strategies

Absolutely - I think this is exactly how Chess works. The moves are extremely simple, all you gotta do is point to a piece and then where to move it, taking turns with your opponent. Yet, Chess is one of the most strategic games ever conceived.

Yes, the interface for a game like chess is very simple, but it doesn't really matter as much in a turn-based game, since, well, it's based on taking turns. Though with a fast clock the simplicity of chess does prove to be useful.

No. The problem here is that for both strategy as well as tactics, the interface is clunky. Tactics doesn't imply twitch-based gameplay any more than strategy does.

Well, I never said anything about the interface. But I stand by that you don't want a strategy game, because that's what Starcraft II is.  From what you said earlier, you want a tactics game where your on the fly thinking is what wins you the game, not the overarching plan that you come in to the battle with that a strategy game requires.  But maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you said.

I think Core's point is that even if you've got a plan of action, which you say is what constitutes a real-time strategy game, in a game like Starcraft it's far too clunky and difficult to actually carry out said plan. If the game is determined by who has the better plan, the game should make actually implementing one's plans as simple as possible. The goal of the interface should be to get in your way as little as possible as you carry out your plan (on how you're going to get your Roaches, for example). I don't know how much Starcraft II improved on this (the ability to select more than 12 units and multiple buildings is certainly welcome), but in Starcraft 1 there was often far more clicking to carry out certain things than was desirable.

Paul does make a good point by saying that one will always be limited by the speed at which one can act on one's thoughts. The goal here should be to maximize the efficiency of the interface so that thoughts translate into as few or as simple actions as possible, so that one's ability to navigate the interface and take action does not end up overshadowing one's plan itself.

^ pretty much this.

My question i suppose is what motivated blizzard to not work more on the interface. Was it to maintain an APM barrier, because they didn't think it needed change, or because they didn't know how? I bet it's a combo of the 3...

[Core Xii]

@Core: What about Warhammer 40K: Dawn Of War?

Haven't played it, mostly because the art style of Warhammer is... well, ridiculous. Maybe I should.

[Fallsburg]

My question i suppose is what motivated blizzard to not work more on the interface. Was it to maintain an APM barrier, because they didn't think it needed change, or because they didn't know how? I bet it's a combo of the 3...

Well, I'm not sure it's any of those.  I think the biggest problem with Starcraft II is that it was entirely hamstrung by Starcraft.  The fervent devotion to Starcraft meant that they could only change small things without completely and utterly pissing off their hardcore fanbase (since that is the audience they were targeting, or so it seems).
Starcraft II feels more like a slightly modified add-on to Starcraft with greatly enhanced graphics.  Following the Warcraft -> Warcraft II -> Starcraft -> Warcraft III progression, Starcraft II was an evolutionary step back from Warcraft III and this was obviously done to make the game closer to Starcraft.

Trust me, I'm not defending Starcraft II.  I think it's a poor game in many aspects.  I think the interface is crap, the feedback mechanisms are some of the worst that I have ever seen in a game, and the core gameplay is inherently not that interesting (at least to me).  I really feel like they wanted to make the best game of 1998 and they succeeded at that by ignoring the last decade of game design. 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

@core

i don't think the things you mention could have been automated. there's a trade off between creep tumors and spawn larvae, a trade off between scan and mules and extra supply, and there's deciding where you want to chrono-boost (which buildings). automating those would take those important decisions away from the player, because a game can be won or lost depending on what the player decides in regards to those options. besides, are you really saying it's *difficult* to do those things quickly? it doesn't take speed, it just takes memory and consistency, since you need to do them once every 30 seconds at most. someone not using queen, orbital command, or nexus energy for anything at all isn't because they have slow fingers, it's because they're forgetful.

i think the automation of the queen to continuously spawn larva would be a good idea but how would you automate orbital commands, or nexus? set it to automatically chrono-boost probes or send down a mule? what if you aren't building probes? what if you don't want to use your mules here, but in some other mineral patch? i think that everything that can be automated should be though. it's just that any automation usually makes something less efficient. for instance, auto-mining is slightly less efficient than telling which worker to go to which patch, because if you are telling them to work individually you can optimize it by going for the closest patches first. but it'd be up to the player to choose between the easy and the efficient.

regardless, as slow as i am in sc2 (as i mentioned, 30apm, which is well below average) i never felt that i lost because i didn't click fast enough. when i lose it's because of some decision i made. so i think the basic criticism that sc2 rewards fast clickers is inaccurate, and that was my point. i agree that more things could be automated, sure, but i don't think that there's a major problem to fix or keeping people from enjoying the game if they tried genuinely to enjoy it. and i promise that i can beat most anyone here in sc2 who is faster than me (which will be most of you), or, if i do happen to be faster, i will play slower than that person intentionally and still win.

[mewse]

This is probably a completely obvious point to make, but..  clicking fast doesn't make you win at SC2.  Really, it doesn't.

At its heart, SC2 is a game about timing and precision, not about button mashing.  

SC2 is a rhythm game where you're playing several instruments at once, at the same time that you're writing the score.

SC2 is about knowing in your bones precisely how long commands take to be carried out, and being ready to give the next command in your plan the very moment that the previous one completes.  Ordinarily you'll have half a dozen or so of these different command sequences all going on at once, while you're simultaneously taking the results of some of those strings of commands to bend the paths you're taking in the others.  (When you send out your scout, for example, the things it sees should cause you to modify both the scout's path, as well as modifying what you're building in your base, etc)

If you're playing SC2 in any other way than this; moving your attention between all your various necessary tasks at precisely the moment when each task needs your attention again, then you're misunderstanding the point of the game.  The designers would never want to automate spawn larva or creep tumors or mules or chrono-boosting;  those are each critical parts of the timing and precision balancing act which is what StarCraft 2 is ultimately about.


Of course, at lower levels of skill you can simply build an army and go stomp on your opponent.  That can be fun too.  But it's really incidental to StarCraft 2's intended core activity.  

[eva_]

u can play competitiv gams "just for fun"...
u just find somone to play with!!!!!!

[Contrary]

I don't know about y'all, but I prefer competitive games for the fun factor. I have way more fun improving skill and feeling skillful and I even enjoy losing if I can appreciate how much more skill the other guy has. What's a major trademark of casual games? Luck. If you aren't going to have different mechanics that require a wide range of skills, you can make games less monotonous by making the game luck based. I don't find winning or losing by luck very much fun in most cases, though sometimes I enjoy luck.

And if you have games that have a low skill requirement and a low luck factor, you have games of Tic Tac Toe. Good times.

[iffi]

I don't think it's the actual competitive spirit that people have a problem with (I certainly don't have a problem with games being competitive), but rather the barriers that arise as a game becomes increasingly focused on competition, possibly at the expense of fun for those who don't dedicate their lives to playing the game. It can get to be quite difficult to balance the competitive depth of a game with its accessibility, and even more so to get the best of both worlds.

[Core Xii]

The fervent devotion to Starcraft meant that they could only change small things without completely and utterly pissing off their hardcore fanbase (since that is the audience they were targeting, or so it seems).

Yet they took out LAN support... and got into a legal battle over pro-gaming leagues having the right to broadcast StarCraft... No, I think Blizzard is just stupid, is all.

i don't think the things you mention could have been automated. there's a trade off between creep tumors and spawn larvae, a trade off between scan and mules and extra supply, and there's deciding where you want to chrono-boost (which buildings). automating those would take those important decisions away from the player, because a game can be won or lost depending on what the player decides in regards to those options.

That's where you and Blizzard are wrong, and fail as game designers (not that you tried to be one, necessarily). It all comes down to identifying what you actually want to promote as an interesting game mechanic, and what's the implementation to get there. Calling down mules isn't a mechanic in itself... it's a solution to a balance problem; A solution that requires uninteresting, repetitive baby-sitting.

Take the example of the chrono boost... Rather than being a distinct ability to activate every X seconds that temporarily boosts production of the target, you could instead make it so that each nexus can select a boost target (and switch at any time), providing the exact same amount of boost per the same time, but constantly and without user action. Unless the player wants to change his decision, which is the interesting part, only then he should have to issue a different order.

Voila, I automated chrono boosting in 5 minutes. Only additional change required would be to figure out how to visually indicate to the enemy which building which nexus is boosting. It's hard to believe Blizzard's armada of game designers didn't think of this. Maybe they did, but consciously chose to make the game terrible instead.

besides, are you really saying it's *difficult* to do those things quickly? it doesn't take speed, it just takes memory and consistency, since you need to do them once every 30 seconds at most.

No more difficult than, say, opening doors to a building. Yet, we automate that, so that we may focus on grander, more interesting things. I most definitely do not feel that repetitive tasks are in any way interesting or part of any strategizing.

for instance, auto-mining is slightly less efficient than telling which worker to go to which patch, because if you are telling them to work individually you can optimize it by going for the closest patches first.

That's just a blatant failure to implement properly. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that the computer couldn't figure out which patches are closest and saturate them first for you. Absolutely no intelligent, human pattern recognition required there, just a simple distance check. If Blizzard couldn't even get that right then they truly are incompetent.

And it's completely irrelevant anyway, because you're saying that as if automation replaced anything - It wouldn't. You could still issue orders manually just fine. The point is you shouldn't need to, not with such obvious, mundane tasks.

[RCIX]

You could still issue orders manually just fine. The point is you shouldn't need to, not with such obvious, mundane tasks.

^this. Chess is a decent example: you don't need any micro, there's not even any time pressure (except in speed chess ), but the game is incredibly strategic. I don't care for the particular brand of strategy in chess, but it's definitely a good example.

I also think that some micro can be fun, if you don't overdo it. Something on a medium tactical scale; big enough to plan tactical maneuvers like flanking and stealth attacks, but not so small that micro of individual or small groups of units is (almost) ever needed.

I'd even make a "less micro" SC2 map if i thought anyone would play it... ^_^ SC2 can very well do things like your proposed implementation of chrono-boosting, it's just not the implementation they chose.

(and yeah, this is a tangent from the original topic, but i'm cool with it. )