next »

[NotHere]

Just a heads up, from what I have read I know sometimes some folks here find such behavior problematic, but I am only going to be responding to parts of posts instead of the whole since I am only interested in parts of them; the other parts I likely lack enough knowledge/experience to discuss further or I otherwise agree on O_O with that said...

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.

Yeah but in Chess the potential amount of orders one makes per turn is also very low. You have an army that never grows with a low variety of units, each of which have very specific possible ending positions. It also helps that the player may have many decisions to make, but is only allowed one order per turn to reflect on those decisions.

Consider how unit control works in other TBS games such as Civiliziation or Advance Wars. In Civilization one will have a wider variety of units to utilize (some of which are clones of each other but in different time periods but this does not happen much I THINK), and the amount of orders one will have to give will scale with the amount of units one has active (and we are also not considering other factors such as ranged versus melee attacking, potential mobility, and whether or not they are even meant for combat). For Advance Wars one will definitely get a feel of how tedious unit control is once armies on each side get large enough. Infantry in particular will feed into this problem quickly because they are slow, extremely affordable and so damn important (both at meat shielding and for capturing properties).

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.

Personally I am able to appreciate this form of control because I would rather have my army engage the opponent together ASAP rather than having to click them over one at a time, even if I unintentionally select some units that should not directly engage. And if I want to be even more precise, I can use shift and double click to make more accurate selections across the screen (and I do not normally make more than two types of combat units at a time so for me it is not much clicking).

Where are you rallying your units? How are you arranging them? I think the only units I would never want to accidentally pull in to combat would be my workers, but I normally have my units rallied away from them anyway, and sometimes if I have screwed up too bad I will be forced to use them to fight. What kind of situations are you dealing with that are causing these problems for you?

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.

Errr... maybe if one only has two or three units at a time, and the map were so small that it entirely fits on one's screen, then that might be fine. But otherwise I do not understand how selecting and drawing pathing lines for very very few units at a time is any faster.

Imagine having to draw pathing lines for 20+ units? When drawing the line across multiple screens, how fast does the screen scroll? Will the unit attempt to move on the path as literally as possible? If so, does that mean one will have to draw very windy paths when dealing with impassable terrain for ground moving units?

Again, I am probably not understanding well. As this idea is obviously new to me, I would appreciate if you were willing to elaborate

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.

Errr, the boost from Chrono Boost is pretty big o_O I believe it is a 50% production speed bonus? It would be way overpowered if it was just applied indefinitely at will, and reducing its strength will reduce the chances of doing risky/non-standard decisions such as tech hiding (Chrono Boosting a unit as fast as possible out of a building that is intentionally hidden and ambushing the opponent with it).

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.

So what does moving individual pawns forward count as?

[iffi]

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.

Errr... maybe if one only has two or three units at a time, and the map were so small that it entirely fits on one's screen, then that might be fine. But otherwise I do not understand how selecting and drawing pathing lines for very very few units at a time is any faster.

Imagine having to draw pathing lines for 20+ units? When drawing the line across multiple screens, how fast does the screen scroll? Will the unit attempt to move on the path as literally as possible? If so, does that mean one will have to draw very windy paths when dealing with impassable terrain for ground moving units?

Again, I am probably not understanding well. As this idea is obviously new to me, I would appreciate if you were willing to elaborate

Sounds a bit like Autumn Dynasty to me, which I played an early demo of and quite liked except having to select units by drawing a complete circle around them (it got frustrating partially because I was used to selecting units by specifying a box area, partially because it tends to be slower than drawing a box).

So what does moving individual pawns forward count as?

Setting up your defense and/or mobility. I'm no chess expert, but I'm pretty sure pawn positioning is very important in chess - getting the pawns arranged to reflect the type of gameplay you are aiming for plays a fairly large role in chess strategy.

[NotHere]

Whoops, probably should make this more relevant.

Specifically, in games that are supposed to be e-sports (Starcraft II, fighting games, etc.). Why does the competitive side have to be so twitchy and fast, vs. the just for fun's relaxed pace? I'd do pretty great in starcraft if the pacing and such wasn't so intense in the ladder games.

I guess the standards that those competitive communities look up to do not jive well with you? Even if those games were somehow made slower or stream-lined, truly competitive players would always be looking for ways to optimize, if not in playing speed then in preemption, and one would end up with either a game that is still fairly intense or stagnant if nobody cares to progress it.

And now back to this other topic!

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.

Errr... maybe if one only has two or three units at a time, and the map were so small that it entirely fits on one's screen, then that might be fine. But otherwise I do not understand how selecting and drawing pathing lines for very very few units at a time is any faster.

Imagine having to draw pathing lines for 20+ units? When drawing the line across multiple screens, how fast does the screen scroll? Will the unit attempt to move on the path as literally as possible? If so, does that mean one will have to draw very windy paths when dealing with impassable terrain for ground moving units?

Again, I am probably not understanding well. As this idea is obviously new to me, I would appreciate if you were willing to elaborate

Sounds a bit like Autumn Dynasty to me, which I played an early demo of and quite liked except having to select units by drawing a complete circle around them (it got frustrating partially because I was used to selecting units by specifying a box area, partially because it tends to be slower than drawing a box).

Ah, forgive my fickleness, but I do not beleive Core Xii specified a method for multiple unit selection, and in fact proposed the new system as a means of avoiding the need to "box" units. I would much prefer being able to circle units together as a group and ordering the collective to a position or along a path, as opposed to directing units one at a time.

As for Autumn Dynasty, it indeed does look very interesting Based on the video you linked me, the second video provided here, and this

, here is what I have observed:

1) Units are very slow, or slower than units in RTS of the Starcraft and C&C variety, and all of the units demonstrated have close range attacks. There is plenty of time for players to issue orders.

2) Based on the maps they have demonstrated, I know at least that units can move over mountains and rivers. There were lakes here and there, but I did not see if units had to avoid them.

3) Playing Autumn Dynasty with a brush, stylus or fingers will be super duper (but having to use the gyroscope to move the screen is yuck). Notice that in the PC review, the shapes made for selecting units was way smaller, as I imagine smaller shapes were more comfortable to make with a mouse (as you pointed out). Also the XBox review got very little screen time and was not clear, so I could not tell but maybe they had trouble getting Autumn Dynasty to work properly on that platform.

EDIT: Cannot believe I forgot to add this in... so when they were demonstrating the game on the whiteboard platform, I am assuming they are using a projector to display the game? If that is the case, how the hell did they get the game to properly respond to the demonstrator's actions, because that looks really cool O_O

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.

So what does moving individual pawns forward count as?

Setting up your defense and/or mobility. I'm no chess expert, but I'm pretty sure pawn positioning is very important in chess - getting the pawns arranged to reflect the type of gameplay you are aiming for plays a fairly large role in chess strategy.

And I suppose having to repeat what is most likely the same order multiple times does not count as repetition? What about the fact that many Chess games end up with the same pawn openings or a race to the middle with Pawns and Knights?

I will not claim to be a Chess expert either, but I would definitely say that some repetitive tasks taken up in Chess are integral to an on-going strategy.

[RCIX]

Specifically, in games that are supposed to be e-sports (Starcraft II, fighting games, etc.). Why does the competitive side have to be so twitchy and fast, vs. the just for fun's relaxed pace? I'd do pretty great in starcraft if the pacing and such wasn't so intense in the ladder games.

I guess the standards that those competitive communities look up to do not jive well with you? Even if those games were somehow made slower or stream-lined, truly competitive players would always be looking for ways to optimize, if not in playing speed then in preemption, and one would end up with either a game that is still fairly intense or stagnant if nobody cares to progress it.

You can have a game that is strategic and competitive without needing to constantly maintain everything (like probe production, larvae spawning, etc.). I'm just wondering why no one has made one. I definitely get the "adrenaline junky twitch gamer", but i'm not seeing why there needs to be a twitch-oriented strategy game.

And I suppose having to repeat what is most likely the same order multiple times does not count as repetition? What about the fact that many Chess games end up with the same pawn openings or a race to the middle with Pawns and Knights?

I will not claim to be a Chess expert either, but I would definitely say that some repetitive tasks taken up in Chess are integral to an on-going strategy.

Well, there's a bit of repetitiveness in Chess, but it's kept to a minimum and it provides some structure.  You don't have to do the same things all.. game... long... like with Starcraft.

[Core Xii]

I think the only units I would never want to accidentally pull in to combat would be my workers, but I normally have my units rallied away from them anyway, and sometimes if I have screwed up too bad I will be forced to use them to fight. What kind of situations are you dealing with that are causing these problems for you?

I wasn't concerned - At all, in fact - about accidentally ordering units to fight; Quite the opposite: In most RTS I find it extremely laborious to get units to fight. They just stand still like lemons, watching as their friend 2 feet away is taking fire. This is the problem with excessive manual control, the units have no brain of their own. They don't move an inch to engage, or retreat in the face of certain defeat - Both of which are very easy to implement in this day and age.

It's even worse with a total separation between moving and attacking like in StarCraft. If you right-click right next to an enemy, you'd think you'd want your units to attack, but the game thinks they should suicidally run to the exact spot you clicked, ignoring the enemy taking free shots at them the whole way. This makes the whole ordeal more like controlling five dozen limbs than issuing orders to soldiers. You have to do every god damned thing yourself. I'm surprised they even shoot back.

My current solution to this is: Single-click issues "soft" order, i.e. with low priority, so units are free to do other things as well; And double-click, which makes the order a high priority; Finally, if you click three or more times in rapid succession, the unit ignores everything else (max priority). When you need something to do something NOW and ignore everything else, you're frantically clicking anyway.

Imagine having to draw pathing lines for 20+ units? When drawing the line across multiple screens, how fast does the screen scroll? Will the unit attempt to move on the path as literally as possible? If so, does that mean one will have to draw very windy paths when dealing with impassable terrain for ground moving units?

The beauty of it is that the number of units doesn't matter - It scales perfectly. You draw the line, and any units nearby follow it. You probably wouldn't track a path five miles long across several screens worth of terrain... For something of such scale you'd want to bring up the minimap - Which in my game fills the entire screen, so in a sense you were correct, the map can fit the screen on request - and draw on that.

The path is more like a guideline than an exact path to trace, so the units follow it somewhat, but it is mostly a suggestion. Paths over impassable terrain are obviously not a problem, since units do pathfinding fine. The most important aspect of the path is the destination.

I call these indirect orders. Rather than saying "you, do this" you say "I want this done" and, having done the math, the computer picks the best unit(s) for the job, if any. Like if you wanted to focus-fire a certain enemy down (although the unit AI should already choose targets intelligently), more often than not you're concerned with focusing that unit down, not who focuses it down. So having to select units before issuing the attack order is redundant at best.

Imagine you're Terrain playing against Protoss and a colossus marches up to roast your marines. The difference between having to select your vikings half a screen away and just clicking on the colossus right away could cost you the game.

The path example is not even the simplest form of indirect command. Even faster (and consequently, even less precise) would be to just click the destination. That'd mean, "I want units here", without specifying exactly who. Nearby units would prioritize moving there. Of course if no-one's near, the order is moot. In my game, there's a separate "scout" order which means "I want this location observed", which might pull a unit from far away to keep eyes on that spot.

Errr, the boost from Chrono Boost is pretty big o_O I believe it is a 50% production speed bonus? It would be way overpowered if it was just applied indefinitely at will, and reducing its strength will reduce the chances of doing risky/non-standard decisions such as tech hiding (Chrono Boosting a unit as fast as possible out of a building that is intentionally hidden and ambushing the opponent with it).

If you didn't want to change the mechanic at all, keeping it exactly the same, then at the very least the nexus should automatically chrono boost the best target when its energy reaches full. Because if you don't spend energy when it's full, the regen is wasted.

Let's consider the mechanics at work here again. What you want, is not "this nexus, chrono boost this building" - That's just the implementation. What you actually want, is "this unit/tech should build fast". What if you for instance Shift+click on a production item to not only add it to queue, but also automatically call for a nexus to boost its production. Now there's no need to select any nexuses at all, the actual desired mechanic remains the same, but the interface is improved.

Even if those games were somehow made slower or stream-lined, truly competitive players would always be looking for ways to optimize, if not in playing speed then in preemption, and one would end up with either a game that is still fairly intense or stagnant if nobody cares to progress it.

But they would be intense in strategy rather than micromanagement.

I do not beleive Core Xii specified a method for multiple unit selection, and in fact proposed the new system as a means of avoiding the need to "box" units. I would much prefer being able to circle units together as a group and ordering the collective to a position or along a path, as opposed to directing units one at a time.

Right. As outlined above, I was talking about issuing orders without any units selected at all (trading accuracy for immediacy). Selection and grouping are completely different subjects - I have also improved those, of course, and can elaborate on inquiry.

You can have a game that is strategic and competitive without needing to constantly maintain everything (like probe production, larvae spawning, etc.). I'm just wondering why no one has made one.

Supreme Commander does pretty well in the production aspect. Overall it still falls short, because units still sit like lemons watching their neighbors burn without lifting a finger without your interference. But compared to StarCraft... Well in StarCraft, you can't even add a unit to the queue unless you can for some reason pay for it in advance, even though it's not built until later. That just begs for you to babysit your money and factories. In SupCom you can not only pre-emptively fill queues, you can also begin production of stuff you don't have money for - They simply won't build until you get the cash.

I've taken it even further, allowing you to issue orders to units still in production (even grouping them!). StarCraft has rally points but those are factory-specific. What you want is for the finished unit to do something, not for the factory to rally all finished units somewhere (since different units have different purposes).

[NotHere]

Specifically, in games that are supposed to be e-sports (Starcraft II, fighting games, etc.). Why does the competitive side have to be so twitchy and fast, vs. the just for fun's relaxed pace? I'd do pretty great in starcraft if the pacing and such wasn't so intense in the ladder games.

I guess the standards that those competitive communities look up to do not jive well with you? Even if those games were somehow made slower or stream-lined, truly competitive players would always be looking for ways to optimize, if not in playing speed then in preemption, and one would end up with either a game that is still fairly intense or stagnant if nobody cares to progress it.

You can have a game that is strategic and competitive without needing to constantly maintain everything (like probe production, larvae spawning, etc.). I'm just wondering why no one has made one. I definitely get the "adrenaline junky twitch gamer", but i'm not seeing why there needs to be a twitch-oriented strategy game.

Pardon me reiterating, but I think your problems are still more due to the community than with the game. Games of SC2 do not simply end if you cannot keep up with an arbitrarily defined tempo, but having better tempo gives you a better chance of winning. Nothing stops you from playing at your own pace, but if you play on the competitive ladder you are likely to be playing against players that demand more from themselves. Maybe you would enjoy playing SC2 more if you played with like minded individuals?

And I suppose having to repeat what is most likely the same order multiple times does not count as repetition? What about the fact that many Chess games end up with the same pawn openings or a race to the middle with Pawns and Knights?

I will not claim to be a Chess expert either, but I would definitely say that some repetitive tasks taken up in Chess are integral to an on-going strategy.

Well, there's a bit of repetitiveness in Chess, but it's kept to a minimum and it provides some structure.  You don't have to do the same things all.. game... long... like with Starcraft.

So then let us imagine that SC2 did not have Chrono Boost, nor Spawn Larva, nor Mules, and one can have unit production set to autocast. With macro pretty much eliminated, you and your opponent(s) will concentrate almost entirely on micro. It would be down to which player has better unit control and map control, which is whoever can send out more orders (or better orders (or better orders faster)) in an equal or shorter amount of time. You will still have to "constantly maintain everything", it is just in another part of the game now.

For me, I sometimes save energy on my CC for Scan or Supply Drop instead, and save up energy on my Nexus if I want to blitz units out of my buildings at a later time. I sometimes cut worker production to opt for putting buildings down faster or getting units out faster as well. As for Zerg... well I can make Queens faster than I can make CCs or Nexii, but I definitely have to give up energy for Tumors sooner or later.

I think the only units I would never want to accidentally pull in to combat would be my workers, but I normally have my units rallied away from them anyway, and sometimes if I have screwed up too bad I will be forced to use them to fight. What kind of situations are you dealing with that are causing these problems for you?

I wasn't concerned - At all, in fact - about accidentally ordering units to fight; Quite the opposite: In most RTS I find it extremely laborious to get units to fight. They just stand still like lemons, watching as their friend 2 feet away is taking fire. This is the problem with excessive manual control, the units have no brain of their own. They don't move an inch to engage, or retreat in the face of certain defeat - Both of which are very easy to implement in this day and age.

It's even worse with a total separation between moving and attacking like in StarCraft. If you right-click right next to an enemy, you'd think you'd want your units to attack, but the game thinks they should suicidally run to the exact spot you clicked, ignoring the enemy taking free shots at them the whole way. This makes the whole ordeal more like controlling five dozen limbs than issuing orders to soldiers. You have to do every god damned thing yourself. I'm surprised they even shoot back.

My current solution to this is: Single-click issues "soft" order, i.e. with low priority, so units are free to do other things as well; And double-click, which makes the order a high priority; Finally, if you click three or more times in rapid succession, the unit ignores everything else (max priority). When you need something to do something NOW and ignore everything else, you're frantically clicking anyway.

But maybe I do not want my entire army to pull in and engage when a single scout comes in and pokes something, in case I am hiding parts of my army. Instead of making my army retreat, maybe I want what is left of them to try and divert the enemy's attention by running somewhere else or scouting out another position. At least with manual control, I can decide that on the fly, whenever I need to. The range for getting other units to pull in and help out a lone unit is not small though, from what I remember.

If you wanted to give an attack-move order, it is pretty simple: press A, then left click somewhere on open space. Your units will move to that position and engage anything along the way. Doing so requires an additional keyboard press instead of just right click, but it is very easy to do. Is there a reason why this option does not work?

But I have to say, having right click defaulting to move when not targeting a hostile is more useful than having it default to attack-move. Sometimes you want to be fighting the units in the back instead of the units in front, or maybe you want your units to surround and pin the enemy down instead. And sometimes, if you really just want your units to go somewhere without engaging (such as retreating or scouting), having right click default to move is great.

As for your solution: I think it would really suck if I have to right click three times every time I wanted my army to just move, surround or flank as intended, or to have them focus on a single target, when a single right click will do that now. Also, attack-move is already very easy. Your differentiation between the priorities is not very clear: if I have my army set to move on "low priority", does that mean they will chase any enemy that comes into vision? How will that be different from "high priority"? Will they just not engage unless an arbitrary number of hostiles are sighted, or some priority algorithm is fulfilled (and what would that priority algorithm be)?

Imagine having to draw pathing lines for 20+ units? When drawing the line across multiple screens, how fast does the screen scroll? Will the unit attempt to move on the path as literally as possible? If so, does that mean one will have to draw very windy paths when dealing with impassable terrain for ground moving units?

The beauty of it is that the number of units doesn't matter - It scales perfectly. You draw the line, and any units nearby follow it. You probably wouldn't track a path five miles long across several screens worth of terrain... For something of such scale you'd want to bring up the minimap - Which in my game fills the entire screen, so in a sense you were correct, the map can fit the screen on request - and draw on that.

The path is more like a guideline than an exact path to trace, so the units follow it somewhat, but it is mostly a suggestion. Paths over impassable terrain are obviously not a problem, since units do pathfinding fine. The most important aspect of the path is the destination.

I call these indirect orders. Rather than saying "you, do this" you say "I want this done" and, having done the math, the computer picks the best unit(s) for the job, if any. Like if you wanted to focus-fire a certain enemy down (although the unit AI should already choose targets intelligently), more often than not you're concerned with focusing that unit down, not who focuses it down. So having to select units before issuing the attack order is redundant at best.

Imagine you're Terrain playing against Protoss and a colossus marches up to roast your marines. The difference between having to select your vikings half a screen away and just clicking on the colossus right away could cost you the game.

The path example is not even the simplest form of indirect command. Even faster (and consequently, even less precise) would be to just click the destination. That'd mean, "I want units here", without specifying exactly who. Nearby units would prioritize moving there. Of course if no-one's near, the order is moot. In my game, there's a separate "scout" order which means "I want this location observed", which might pull a unit from far away to keep eyes on that spot.

Any nearby units? What counts as nearby? Would nearby count as being within two pixels from when I start drawing the line? Would units halfway across the map count as being nearby? How can I make sure that I am not sending my entire army to do something that only some units or one unit needs to do (such as sending my ground units with my air units into an area that only air units can move to)?

Okay, and now in the third paragraph you are asking for the computer to play the game for you.
1. I really doubt that there could be a focus-firing algorithm defined by any game programmer or game designer that would universially satisfy every player in any situation. Feel free to try.
2. Being able to accurately (and quickly) identify key targets to eliminate (or avoid) is a big part of strategy, even in Chess. You would not mind eliminating this element?

In your TvP situation, I am indeed very likely to lose the game if incoming Colossi killed my Marines and I had no Vikings nearby to fight the Colossi off. I am also very likely to lose in Chess if I lose some Pawns without trading for anything. Potentially losing everything in small moves has always been part of strategy games, and being attentive has always been a pretty big deal as well.

I'm not sure what your indirect command example is trying to address. I can right click on empty space to tell my units I want them to go there in SC2, so that functionality is already available. Why would a separate "scout" order be necessary? Will you be adding in orders for other movement related actions such as "flank", "surround", and "avoid"?

Errr, the boost from Chrono Boost is pretty big o_O I believe it is a 50% production speed bonus? It would be way overpowered if it was just applied indefinitely at will, and reducing its strength will reduce the chances of doing risky/non-standard decisions such as tech hiding (Chrono Boosting a unit as fast as possible out of a building that is intentionally hidden and ambushing the opponent with it).

If you didn't want to change the mechanic at all, keeping it exactly the same, then at the very least the nexus should automatically chrono boost the best target when its energy reaches full. Because if you don't spend energy when it's full, the regen is wasted.

Let's consider the mechanics at work here again. What you want, is not "this nexus, chrono boost this building" - That's just the implementation. What you actually want, is "this unit/tech should build fast". What if you for instance Shift+click on a production item to not only add it to queue, but also automatically call for a nexus to boost its production. Now there's no need to select any nexuses at all, the actual desired mechanic remains the same, but the interface is improved.

Okay, so what would the algorithm for "best Chrono Boost targets" be? What if, for instance, none of your buildings are doing anything? I think this is also related to the "computer playing the game for you" concern I made earlier (possibly infeasible, but also strategically untrivial).

That is correct, what I want is "this unit/tech should build fast", but sometimes that tech or unit is not immediately available, and I cannot Chrono Boost indefinitely (CB lasts for 20 seconds, costs 25 energy, takes more than 20 seconds for Nexus to regenerate 25 energy). If I am understanding your shift+click proposal, I think it will not work well for two reasons:
1. It only works with clicking on the UI for production, and not when using hotkeys.
2. It is continuously used without my discretion, what if for example I only want to use one Chrono Boost, or what if the computer auto Chrono Boosts something that only has 3 seconds left till it finishes?

Even if those games were somehow made slower or stream-lined, truly competitive players would always be looking for ways to optimize, if not in playing speed then in preemption, and one would end up with either a game that is still fairly intense or stagnant if nobody cares to progress it.

But they would be intense in strategy rather than micromanagement.

Strategy is not relevant to micro? Is that what you are implying?

I do not beleive Core Xii specified a method for multiple unit selection, and in fact proposed the new system as a means of avoiding the need to "box" units. I would much prefer being able to circle units together as a group and ordering the collective to a position or along a path, as opposed to directing units one at a time.

Right. As outlined above, I was talking about issuing orders without any units selected at all (trading accuracy for immediacy). Selection and grouping are completely different subjects - I have also improved those, of course, and can elaborate on inquiry.

Do tell

[Core Xii]

At least with manual control, I can decide that on the fly, whenever I need to.

Again, I wanted automation in addition to manual control, so you could still do that just fine even if the units were smart.

If you wanted to give an attack-move order, it is pretty simple: press A, then left click somewhere on open space. [...] Doing so requires an additional keyboard press instead of just right click, but it is very easy to do. Is there a reason why this option does not work?

You answered your own question; It requires an additional keyboard press. That's a 200% increase in the required number of actions to issue this command (with units already selected; Compared to my indirect order scheme, it's a 300% increase). And when you've got dozens of units on the front line, none with any brain of their own, you're wanting to perform this sequence quite frequently. It might not seem like much, but all the little things add up.

But I have to say, having right click defaulting to move when not targeting a hostile is more useful than having it default to attack-move. Sometimes you want to be fighting the units in the back instead of the units in front, or maybe you want your units to surround and pin the enemy down instead. And sometimes, if you really just want your units to go somewhere without engaging (such as retreating or scouting), having right click default to move is great.

Having an action that you only perform sometimes as the default to the easiest, most efficient key (or button in this case) is absolutely horrible design. The fact of the matter is that the examples you enumerated are the exceptions; Besides, I've already offered alternate solutions to issue such orders.

I think it would really suck if I have to right click three times every time I wanted my army to just move, surround or flank as intended, or to have them focus on a single target, when a single right click will do that now.

Would it really? How often do you realistically have to force your units to ignore everything else but a move? As for focus fire, I said a single click assigns a higher priority on the target, I never claimed three for that (although you certainly can; The more times you click, the higher the priority. With three clicks, every unit nearby might blindly charge forward to pick it off).

Your differentiation between the priorities is not very clear: if I have my army set to move on "low priority", does that mean they will chase any enemy that comes into vision? How will that be different from "high priority"? Will they just not engage unless an arbitrary number of hostiles are sighted, or some priority algorithm is fulfilled (and what would that priority algorithm be)?

I'm vague on purpose; The exact weights of the priorities and the algorithms to determine them are beyond the scope of my argument. It would take extensive testing to tune everything correctly.

Same goes for your definition of "nearby", or the "best" target to chrono boost.

1. I really doubt that there could be a focus-firing algorithm defined by any game programmer or game designer that would universially satisfy every player in any situation. Feel free to try.
2. Being able to accurately (and quickly) identify key targets to eliminate (or avoid) is a big part of strategy, even in Chess. You would not mind eliminating this element?

Once again you are missing the point. Never did I eliminate any of your beloved manual control; I merely added automation on top of it. I do not need to universally satisfy every condition; Only those that occur the most. For the rest, you can still do your precise orders, if with slightly increased effort (which is worth the gain).

I'm not sure what your indirect command example is trying to address. I can right click on empty space to tell my units I want them to go there in SC2, so that functionality is already available.

No, you can't. Read my example again. I don't have any units selected; Leading to even faster orders.

Will you be adding in orders for other movement related actions such as "flank", "surround", and "avoid"?

As few as possible. The current orders are defend, attack, recon and supply. Every maneuver I can think of so far is possible with these four. Well... Except whether a building should be assaulted or destroyed. Still working on that, it ties into a larger system of garrisoning infantry that I haven't figured out fully yet. I'll probably end up splitting attacking into assault and bombardment.

If I am understanding your shift+click proposal, I think it will not work well for two reasons:
1. It only works with clicking on the UI for production, and not when using hotkeys.
2. It is continuously used without my discretion, what if for example I only want to use one Chrono Boost, or what if the computer auto Chrono Boosts something that only has 3 seconds left till it finishes?

Again, this is not a replacement. It is an addition. Your hotkeys still work fine. If you only want to use one chrono boost, Shift+click once. If two, twice. Three, thrice. The last problem sounds like a user error to me. If you shift+click then you explicitly issue the order to chrono boost; I fail to see then how it is a mistake for the nexus to do so, since it is what you ordered.

Strategy is not relevant to micro? Is that what you are implying?

Mmm the other way around, micro should not be relevant to strategy; Your inability to mash keys quickly should hinder the effectiveness of your strategies as little as possible. That's what we're aiming here for; Minimizing the effort required by the interface to realize your plans.

Do tell

Alright. Well similarly to issuing orders (right-click), selection (left-click) has different methods: Point, line and closed path.

A simple click selects a unit. Some more specific selection action is bound to double-click, but I'm not sure what quite yet. Drawing a line does the traditional box select, from one corner to the other. A closed path is a greater effort, more precise way of selecting large quantities of units. Units within the closed area are selected, so you can "box select" more complex (or less rectangular) shapes. I might also do something with non-closed paths, but there's a risk of ambiguity with paths straight enough to resemble lines (box select).

Apart from simple selection, there's a system of dynamic, easy grouping of units. Whereas most RTS have a limited number of hotkeys to assign groups to, my system is key-less. Basically you can join/split groups with minimal effort (currently one key to (un)group all selected units; Working to simplify even further) and when individual soldiers are grouped, they literally operate as a unit. You cannot select an individual member of a squad, only the whole unit (maybe this is a good action for double-clicking?) and it appears on the map as a single icon. Since my "mini"-map fills the entire screen, hotkeys are largely unnecessary since you have very fast access to every part of the map with the press of a key.

Again note that you can completely ignore this functionality if you still want to micro everything yourself; Just don't touch the (un)group key (or whatever better method I come up with) and/or use the traditional hotkeys, which I'll probably still implement to satisfy conservative RTS'ers.

[NotHere]

At least with manual control, I can decide that on the fly, whenever I need to.

Again, I wanted automation in addition to manual control, so you could still do that just fine even if the units were smart.

Uh, no, when including a new control interface like that, the game changes quite a bit. Introducing further automation to micro and macro in the ways you have proposed are likely to do one of the following:

1. Your units will act stupidly, like how the AI controls units. You will end up having to exert some manual control just to correct the automated controls. That hardly seems to be what you want to achieve.

2. Your units are so precisely controlled by the AI that there is no reason to manually control the units. The game then becomes just as interesting as opening up a spreadsheet because being responsive is no longer a requirement.

There is really no gray area when discussing the capabilities of automated controls; either they are designed poorly and purposely exploitable, or designed so well that nothing is left to the imagination. Manual controls will have holes here and there, but it is up to the player herself to address these issues with her limited time and energy, and from that many different play styles can appear.

You are also affecting the balance of the game when introducing these controls. Automating macro also means that players can concentrate more on micro, which raises the minimum level of micro necessary for competing, which helps unit compositions that are micro dependent (marine/marauder/medivac or ling/muta) and does not help unit compositions that are tactically dependent (tank/thor/viking or bane/infestor).

If automated controls of your style were introduced, then I think it would work best if that and manual controls had separate ladders and separate balancing teams. The control schemes would still be available in custom games if players choose to allow (both, or one of either).

If you wanted to give an attack-move order, it is pretty simple: press A, then left click somewhere on open space. [...] Doing so requires an additional keyboard press instead of just right click, but it is very easy to do. Is there a reason why this option does not work?

You answered your own question; It requires an additional keyboard press. That's a 200% increase in the required number of actions to issue this command (with units already selected; Compared to my indirect order scheme, it's a 300% increase). And when you've got dozens of units on the front line, none with any brain of their own, you're wanting to perform this sequence quite frequently. It might not seem like much, but all the little things add up.

I am not sure how I can sincerely address this. Do you lament having to press ctrl and C together in order to copy in Windows? Does factoring in effort costs for pressing one additional button help you with strategy at all? Does pressing an additional button for a command that does not need to be used often hurt strategy somehow? What other hot key configurations in life plague thee?

But I have to say, having right click defaulting to move when not targeting a hostile is more useful than having it default to attack-move. Sometimes you want to be fighting the units in the back instead of the units in front, or maybe you want your units to surround and pin the enemy down instead. And sometimes, if you really just want your units to go somewhere without engaging (such as retreating or scouting), having right click default to move is great.

Having an action that you only perform sometimes as the default to the easiest, most efficient key (or button in this case) is absolutely horrible design. The fact of the matter is that the examples you enumerated are the exceptions; Besides, I've already offered alternate solutions to issue such orders.

Wait wait... so attempting to bait, surround, scout or retreat are "exceptions"? So it is not normal for one to attempt to out-maneuver or zone out the opponent in Starcraft 2?

Says who now?

I think it would really suck if I have to right click three times every time I wanted my army to just move, surround or flank as intended, or to have them focus on a single target, when a single right click will do that now.

Would it really? How often do you realistically have to force your units to ignore everything else but a move? As for focus fire, I said a single click assigns a higher priority on the target, I never claimed three for that (although you certainly can; The more times you click, the higher the priority. With three clicks, every unit nearby might blindly charge forward to pick it off).

I actually do force units to ignore everything but a move quite often. Having the right positioning or formation tends to be very important in Starcraft 2, sometimes it is worth taking some extra damage or even losing some units before actually attacking back.

Also, considering how fast units die and how many units are fielded in Starcraft 2 (we are still discussing Starcraft 2 at this point yes?), having to rapidly assign priority by using right clicks would waste a lot of time for units that should not last long. Shift queueing attack orders works just as well for prioritizing attack targets and is slightly faster (hold shift, right click highest priority target, right click next highest priority target, etc...).

Your differentiation between the priorities is not very clear: if I have my army set to move on "low priority", does that mean they will chase any enemy that comes into vision? How will that be different from "high priority"? Will they just not engage unless an arbitrary number of hostiles are sighted, or some priority algorithm is fulfilled (and what would that priority algorithm be)?

I'm vague on purpose; The exact weights of the priorities and the algorithms to determine them are beyond the scope of my argument. It would take extensive testing to tune everything correctly.

Same goes for your definition of "nearby", or the "best" target to chrono boost.

Okay, so you have made a proposal for functions that more or less are already available in Starcraft 2, except you might have to press one or two keys more (or less!). You are also not sure of the full design for your functions and admit that doing so would take a lot of effort to fully work out. Nevermind that a particular player might not always have the same idea of "nearby" or "best" in every situation, or that two players may think of "nearby" or "best" as different things in even the same situation.

That is quite a work load.

1. I really doubt that there could be a focus-firing algorithm defined by any game programmer or game designer that would universially satisfy every player in any situation. Feel free to try.
2. Being able to accurately (and quickly) identify key targets to eliminate (or avoid) is a big part of strategy, even in Chess. You would not mind eliminating this element?

Once again you are missing the point. Never did I eliminate any of your beloved manual control; I merely added automation on top of it. I do not need to universally satisfy every condition; Only those that occur the most. For the rest, you can still do your precise orders, if with slightly increased effort (which is worth the gain).

Worth the gain from your perspective perhaps? And you are purposely designing the controls to only work with specific situations? Does that not introduce an advantage for certain strategies which may not be needing those advantages? What situations do you think occur the most?

You can see what my opinions on introducing automation are in my first response.

I'm not sure what your indirect command example is trying to address. I can right click on empty space to tell my units I want them to go there in SC2, so that functionality is already available.

No, you can't. Read my example again. I don't have any units selected; Leading to even faster orders.

It also leads to more inaccurate orders and having to correct those orders, or spending time to make sure the first order is right to begin with. Again, what is "nearby"? How do I make sure that these (and ONLY these) specific units follow an order I give out?

Will you be adding in orders for other movement related actions such as "flank", "surround", and "avoid"?

As few as possible. The current orders are defend, attack, recon and supply. Every maneuver I can think of so far is possible with these four. Well... Except whether a building should be assaulted or destroyed. Still working on that, it ties into a larger system of garrisoning infantry that I haven't figured out fully yet. I'll probably end up splitting attacking into assault and bombardment.

Well... I guess it is up to you to decide how your game works, and I have no idea what it is like (it sure does not sound like Starcraft though) =P

If I am understanding your shift+click proposal, I think it will not work well for two reasons:
1. It only works with clicking on the UI for production, and not when using hotkeys.
2. It is continuously used without my discretion, what if for example I only want to use one Chrono Boost, or what if the computer auto Chrono Boosts something that only has 3 seconds left till it finishes?

Again, this is not a replacement. It is an addition. Your hotkeys still work fine. If you only want to use one chrono boost, Shift+click once. If two, twice. Three, thrice. The last problem sounds like a user error to me. If you shift+click then you explicitly issue the order to chrono boost; I fail to see then how it is a mistake for the nexus to do so, since it is what you ordered.

In Starcraft 2, a lot of things can change on the fly. Maybe you scouted out the opponent and found that they are fielding a unit you need an answer for quickly, or the unit or tech you are researching should be put off for something else. Players will have to cancel their production plans and build something else, and the player may have to cancel the Chrono Boosts and requeue them somewhere else. Additionally, production times are not uniform so accurately distributing Chrono Boosts is not trivial.

I guess this change would be practical if one is absolutely sure of what one want to be producing and does not mind being liberal with Chrono Boosts.

Strategy is not relevant to micro? Is that what you are implying?

Mmm the other way around, micro should not be relevant to strategy; Your inability to mash keys quickly should hinder the effectiveness of your strategies as little as possible. That's what we're aiming here for; Minimizing the effort required by the interface to realize your plans.

Well then, you can choose to utilize a strategy that is less dependent on micro. Going heavy on zerglings or marines is not wholly necessary to winning. I personally like a tank/viking heavy composition, which is one of the most effective "lazy" strategies available, but it is very hard to get it started.

However, at least in the context of real time strategy games, when players are using the same strategy, or purportedly equally strong strategies against each other, then it makes sense that the player putting in more effort (or better effort (or better effort faster)) should come out as the victor. This is expected of Starcraft, but is this element absent in Command & Conquer, or Supreme Commander, or Total Annihilation?

Do tell

Alright. Well similarly to issuing orders (right-click), selection (left-click) has different methods: Point, line and closed path.

A simple click selects a unit. Some more specific selection action is bound to double-click, but I'm not sure what quite yet. Drawing a line does the traditional box select, from one corner to the other. A closed path is a greater effort, more precise way of selecting large quantities of units. Units within the closed area are selected, so you can "box select" more complex (or less rectangular) shapes. I might also do something with non-closed paths, but there's a risk of ambiguity with paths straight enough to resemble lines (box select).

Apart from simple selection, there's a system of dynamic, easy grouping of units. Whereas most RTS have a limited number of hotkeys to assign groups to, my system is key-less. Basically you can join/split groups with minimal effort (currently one key to (un)group all selected units; Working to simplify even further) and when individual soldiers are grouped, they literally operate as a unit. You cannot select an individual member of a squad, only the whole unit (maybe this is a good action for double-clicking?) and it appears on the map as a single icon. Since my "mini"-map fills the entire screen, hotkeys are largely unnecessary since you have very fast access to every part of the map with the press of a key.

Again note that you can completely ignore this functionality if you still want to micro everything yourself; Just don't touch the (un)group key (or whatever better method I come up with) and/or use the traditional hotkeys, which I'll probably still implement to satisfy conservative RTS'ers.

Hmm, the minimap fills the entire screen, meaning I have to toggle between a regular battlefield view and the minimap view. Is that correct?

Well I cannot comment much else on your game, it would be interesting to see what it is like in motion.

[Raptor85]

You sound like you want AI control to take care of your units while you're not manually using them, basically automation on everything you don't currently have orders out to. That was already done to some degree in the "Star Trek: Armada" series.  With one button you could tell a unit to sweep the map, scout, or hunt down any enemies.  The game was absolutely frustrating to play. Everything is always moving and you constantly have to re-issue orders. The most used button in the game is the button to force your units to stop EVERYTHING they're doing.

One of my biggest beefs with star trek armada/armada2 was that the units, in an attempt to be "smart" would act on their own when attacked or provoked.  It's unbelievably frustrating, and incredibly hard to set up an attack when your units move when you don't tell them to.  The manual control in games like starcraft is very much necessary, how does the computer know if I'm setting up an ambush by hiding units, or simply didn't notice the enemy attacking? I'm sorry to say but the interface you're describing sounds absolutely frustrating to use.

That said, I don't particularly like starcraft's UI..and it's not a case of automation, it's a case of placement and grouping. I haven't played 2 but I always preferred command & conquer's UI to starcraft 1's, where my unit production, building production, and command buttons are always available at the side of my screen.  You can still control which building creates the units by clicking to set primary, but you can build units without  having to leave your current screen/task and re-select the building. (you can set them to hotkeys in starcraft, but the C&C menu is much nicer imho)  I also prefered the infinite sized groups and much better waypoint system.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

this is an old post someone made in team liquid regarding starcraft that i thought was appropriate to this thread; particularly the last paragraph

people are resistant to this idea because people hate it when they are just excluded from being good. apm and mechanics can be practiced but the perception is that for raw speed and multitask, there are physical limits, kind of like height and coordination in basketball. some people have it, some people don't. the truth is right there in front of you when your opponent is faster and better. whereas strategy seems to be this abstract concept that the everyman thinks he can learn and beat people with. there's something more egalitarian and attractive about strategy trumping speed (ie out-thinking an opponent who has better mechanics).

think of it like a real sport, there are a few exceptions but in basketball in general you need to jump high, be tall, and be coordinated/athletic, and then you can learn about footwork, jump shots, and where to move on defense. sure you can play basketball without the height/speed/jumping ability and even play it very well, but you won't be the best in the world. the same is for SC--you need a base level of handspeed and multitask that to an extent can be practiced (like speed and jump can be trained in basketball) but innately there are different ceilings and limits for everyone. You need these aspects to be elite before even thinking about strategy.

unfortunately this isn't reality. its NOT good when strategy is the biggest part of the game because for computer games, there are easily reachable limits to strategy. yes SC is still evolving but its mainly adjusting to maps and metagame, not the basics. there are few new revolutionary strategies on a basic level--nothing is going to change the "base" tactics of vultures and tanks vs protoss and mm vs zerg.

where players can differentiate themselves is mechanics, speed, etc. that's what makes a sport a sport and a game a game, when certain players are better and no matter what most of the people do, they won't get as good as the best. that's where high skill differentiation comes in. and its good for SC, not bad.

but to sum up, a lot of people hate it that mechanics > strategy because it basically kills any chance of being very good for a large portion of the community. there is always a general sentiment that whats inside (smarts, personality, etc) should matter more than innate outer qualities (physical ability, looks), because you can control one much more than the other. for many players and fans, they see the mechanics as physical, less controllable quality and strategy as "whats on the inside" so they feel its more genuine or fair to win by strategy than pure mechanics, because it means that anyone, even those that aren't fast like themselves, can be great. that's why people love the short players in the NBA, because its hope that anyone can be great at basketball regardless of height. this obviously just isn't true and the few short players are truly rare exceptions to a rule. its a hard reality to face for a lot of people, that they just can't be great.

[Pineapple]

I'd like to chip in that the reason I hate RTS games is because the units are so stupid. The game that gets the most right that I've played is the original Rise of Nations. The units are smart generally enough to not get killed pointlessly (they react to attack somewhat intelligently) and they're stupid enough to do what you tell them.

For me, the balance is having priorities right. Following my orders shouldn't be a unit's top priority; that's unrealistic and idiotic. No, my orders should be second and preservation of self should be first. (Then after orders, defending structures and other units should be third.)

[The Monster King]

so units should run away when almost dead?
what if you need them to shoot that last bullet!

[Mipe]

Them damn cowardly deserters, ruining the strategy! 

Signed: Just about every historical commander.

[Core Xii]

1. Your units will act stupidly, like how the AI controls units. You will end up having to exert some manual control just to correct the automated controls. That hardly seems to be what you want to achieve.

Maybe Blizzard sucks as programming AIs, but I plan to make my units act intelligently.

2. Your units are so precisely controlled by the AI that there is no reason to manually control the units. The game then becomes just as interesting as opening up a spreadsheet because being responsive is no longer a requirement.

I'd rather play a deeply strategic game on a spreadsheet than some button mashing contest where strategy doesn't even come into play.

I am not sure how I can sincerely address this. Do you lament having to press ctrl and C together in order to copy in Windows? Does factoring in effort costs for pressing one additional button help you with strategy at all? Does pressing an additional button for a command that does not need to be used often hurt strategy somehow?

Thankfully I don't need to copy-paste while strategizing in a war, so it doesn't bother me much. I get paid by the hour when I copy-paste at work. I was under the impression that attack-moves were a fairly frequent order. Could be mistaken, I don't really play SC2.

Wait wait... so attempting to bait, surround, scout or retreat are "exceptions"? So it is not normal for one to attempt to out-maneuver or zone out the opponent in Starcraft 2?

Says who now?

You're the one who said sometimes over and over again. I'm just working off of that. All those examples of yours should be automated anyway. "Baiting" is just an artifact of the stupid unit AI where a single soldier from a group chases after enemies while his buddies mill around oblivious to the fact. Units should cooperate. "Surround" should just come naturally; There's no maneuver where you wouldn't want your zerglings to surround the marines or your stalkers to make a nice concave. Just more shortcomings of the poor AI.

(we are still discussing Starcraft 2 at this point yes?)

Well, not really. I mean all the outlined problems are present in every other RTS as well. StarCraft 2 is just the most recent example in this long period of complete lack of innovation in the genre.

That is quite a work load.

So that's your argument against innovation? Because it's hard?

In Starcraft 2, a lot of things can change on the fly. Maybe you scouted out the opponent and found that they are fielding a unit you need an answer for quickly, or the unit or tech you are researching should be put off for something else. Players will have to cancel their production plans and build something else, and the player may have to cancel the Chrono Boosts and requeue them somewhere else.

Ah, perhaps you thought the chrono boost was tied to the specific production item? I only proposed a faster method for deploying chrono boost in certain (hopefully, the most frequent) situations; Its mechanics still remain the same. The chrono boost is still on the building and you can cancel production and manufacture something else as before.

However, at least in the context of real time strategy games, when players are using the same strategy, or purportedly equally strong strategies against each other, then it makes sense that the player putting in more effort (or better effort (or better effort faster)) should come out as the victor. This is expected of Starcraft, but is this element absent in Command & Conquer, or Supreme Commander, or Total Annihilation?

I disagree. Because strategies are easy to copy, but micro is specific to one individual and his years and years of practice. If an otherwise superior but micro-reliant build order was discovered, that would mean the fastest players win, even if they didn't need to do any strategizing of their own at all. Not to mention that StarCraft 2 is quite shallow in strategy, making it even more vulnerable to simple build order wins where the fastest execution of a well-known strategy is preferable. It's no coincidence that "creative" play is revered in the StarCraft community, precisely for this reason; It throws off the practiced BOs and gives room to true strategy. Pity every game of StarCraft isn't like this, which is what I'm after.

Hmm, the minimap fills the entire screen, meaning I have to toggle between a regular battlefield view and the minimap view. Is that correct?

Correct. It's basically a "zoom out" button. The map displays as long as its held, so a quick tap gives you a very rapid glimpse of the whole game, with increased accuracy compared to a small minimap in the corner. Of course, this makes the game actually more micro-y contrary to my goals, so I'm working on another method to display information (icons on the edges of the screen).

how does the computer know if I'm setting up an ambush by hiding units, or simply didn't notice the enemy attacking?

Well, you could try telling it that. It's your Star Trek game's fault if it didn't provide the necessary functions for basic strategy. Sounds like a bad implementation of a good idea. I'm sure I can do better. (or die trying!)

this is an old post someone made in team liquid regarding starcraft that i thought was appropriate to this thread; particularly the last paragraph

Now this gets into a more philosophical debate. What he said is true. It is my belief that intelligence trumps strength. I think it should be pretty obvious at this point in our civilization's evolution. Like I said, I wonder what the people who think otherwise will say when we control everything with our minds and their quick fingers become obsolete.

[Muz]

I'd like to chip in that the reason I hate RTS games is because the units are so stupid. The game that gets the most right that I've played is the original Rise of Nations. The units are smart generally enough to not get killed pointlessly (they react to attack somewhat intelligently) and they're stupid enough to do what you tell them.

For me, the balance is having priorities right. Following my orders shouldn't be a unit's top priority; that's unrealistic and idiotic. No, my orders should be second and preservation of self should be first. (Then after orders, defending structures and other units should be third.)

There are a lot of RTS that run when badly injured. But they didn't catch on for some reason.

Personally, I don't think of a RTS as a strategy game. They're games where you memorize build orders and 'tactics'. People play them as twitch sports, just like people would play basketball or ping pong. They're pretty much games where winning and losing is the whole point.

If I wanted a strategy game, turn based strategy works a lot better. Something with a much slower pace like Neptune's Pride or Supremacy strikes a great balance between TBS and RTS at the downside of being something you check all day.

[s0]

Now this gets into a more philosophical debate. What he said is true. It is my belief that intelligence trumps strength. I think it should be pretty obvious at this point in our civilization's evolution. Like I said, I wonder what the people who think otherwise will say when we control everything with our minds and their quick fingers become obsolete.

Pro sports still exist and are popular. I think you're making a mistake linking games to society's evolution in a linear way. Games are always ultimately "pointless" so there's no reason they shouldn't (continue to) emphasize skill sets that have become obsolete IRL.

[Core Xii]

Games are always ultimately "pointless" so there's no reason they shouldn't (continue to) emphasize skill sets that have become obsolete IRL.

Well that's where you're gravely mistaken. Games are like tiny universes; They have rules and the goal is to exploit those rules to win. One that has become adept at exploiting rules in systems such as these do better in the real world, which is also a system of rules to exploit. To state that games are pointless means you lack vision. Did you plan on the human race existing on this planet engaging in physical sports until its eventual demise? Games don't emphasize obsolete skill sets, quite the opposite, they emphasize useful skills. That's why people play them. Only, everyone doesn't agree on what's useful - Right now, finger dexterity may be important, but not for many years I think. Direct brain control isn't that far off. And before that we'll likely get eye control where displays are implanted into the retinas and controlled by eye movements.

[s0]

Then why do I enjoy twitch-based action games despite the fact that I rarely need physical skills in my daily life?

I'll tell you why: It's because I don't see games as a tool to train real-world skills, but as an escape from the "real world" and its (to me) oppressive focus on "usefulness". I play games for the experience.

Also I don't "plan" anything for humanity because I'm not narcissistic enough to think that my actions have any significant influence on humanity at large.

[J-Snake]

For me games are both. Escaping the reality and experiencing new worlds, like you have said. But also the possibility to compete and improve and "grow" in your virtual universe.

And before that we'll likely get eye control where displays are implanted into the retinas and controlled by eye movements.

Your fantasies are scary, though.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

there is no "mind" vs "strength" issue here. if you're skilled at starcraft's mechanics, it's because of your brain, not because your muscles have more fast-twitch than slow-twitch fibers. a good portion of physical strength is mental strength as well (mothers who can lift up cars in emergencies).

it's also well-known in strength training that a lot of physical strength is nervous system strength, and practicing movements is largely done not to increase the muscle's ability, but to improve the efficiency of the nervous system. the reason why beginners experience such dramatic strength gains when they begin exercising is largely an improvement in the efficacy of their nervous system's ability, not an improvement in their body.

and of course the idea that we'll ever not need our bodies is somewhat irrelevant: it won't happen until a bit after we're all dead, so in this world, the skills that matter are what is important to us now, not the skills that will matter in 2050 or 2100. imagine a guy in ww2 saying 'where is all your military might going to go, germany, after war is abolished!' -- it's just irrelevant to the current situation.

also the entire point of that paragraph was that some people's minds are just innately better than other people's minds (the ability to play sc at 400apm is a power of the mind, not a power of the fingers: anyone can spam 1000 apm if they press random buttons, but not everyone can make those meaningful controlling movements). not everyone has the mental rhythm and mental timing required. so it's weird that you'd associate that with physicality at all, it's all done with the brain.

if you meant the case of basketball (etc.) and height, then sure that's different, but even in basketball i'd say that skill is 99% the mind, and only 1% genetics. it's necessary to have a specific type of genetics to reach the very elite (nba-level) of play, but genetics are absolutely irrelevant at the lower levels (high school basketball for instance), where the major thing is how well-practiced your brain is at the sport and where height and speed aren't anywhere near as important as aim and such.

there's also the issue that brains differ genetically, so even we somehow lost the need for physical work (and even if it happened soon enough to matter to any of us) it wouldn't change that some people are just better at things than other people and you have to accept that; even with a game played with a brain-game interface, with no going through the fingers at all, there will still be distinct differences between the highest-level of competitors and everyone else, and that difference will largely be genetic.