How do you think BERT is doing?

[Ryika]

RTS were and will always be about APM, that's one of the reasons the RTS-Genre died off so much with the advent of the competitive gaming culture. People realize how insanely steep and high the learning curves for such games are, which was not the case in times where people casually played against their friends and the AI.

Ironically, one of the main complaints of the competitive SC2 scene and the people following the competitive SC2 scene was the low skill sealing that the game had in Wings of Liberty.

Don't even know why you'd need a new IP though. Warcraft 4X? Count me in!

In the end however, this is just a thought experiment. I very well know that Blizzard will probably never develop a 4X.

 

[Galgus]

APM skills are inherent to RTS, but that does not mean that they are not exaggerated in Starcraft beyond what they need to be.

Increased automation of tasks where players aren't making decisions often, less focus on click abilities, and more focus on actual tactics over micro would all make it more manageable.

In my limited experience conversing with hardcore Starcraft fans, they seem to be a traditionalist bunch who, aside from complaints on Protoss APM requirements, like the hectic clicking.

Which is fine, but it won't help the game appeal to a broader audience.

My favorite RTS remains Red Alert 3, particularly with the Paradox mod that shut down due to a poor mod engine after years of effort.

While it isn't perfect and it certainly has micro intensive moments, it is a bit less hectic than Starcraft in terms of APM.
________________________________________________________

I agree that a Warcraft 4X could be great, or even a well done Starcraft 4X.

 

[PhilBowles]

RTS were and will always be about APM,

Spoken like someone only familiar with Blizzard's representatives of the genre, which are very heavily-simplified in every area other than unit micro (sadly, the current fashion for making what are styled retro RTS games like Grey Goo take their cue from the same source, and tend to be extremely simplified games in terms of building, tech, and unit variety that also dispense with Blizzard's APM play). Games like Age of Empires are pretty much setting your formation and A-move to fight (or, in the more sophisticated case of Cossacks, setting up your armies in ranks and squares), as much more of the games' focus is on building, teching, and resource collection, and few units have activated abilities of any kind.

that's one of the reasons the RTS-Genre died off so much with the advent of the competitive gaming culture.

Only Blizzard ever really pushed competitive play in RTSes - a classical RTS has too many moving parts to make them well-suited to competitive play; the same is true of more modern RTS designs like Company of Heroes, and even those are mechanically simple compared with - say - Cossacks (an example I like to use because I consider it the apex of classical RTS design, released at about the time interest in these games was trailing off).

People realize how insanely steep and high the learning curves for such games are, which was not the case in times where people casually played against their friends and the AI.

It's certainly true that like almost all games of the time, classical RTSes were mostly designed for single-player play (and had longer and more satisfying campaigns as a result), but simply being multiplayer-focused is not how most people would define competitive gaming.

In the end however, this is just a thought experiment. I very well know that Blizzard will probably never develop a 4X.

Another feature of the touted 'Blizzard magic' is that Blizzard tends to target niches where there isn't a great deal of competition - no one else has made even simplified classic RTSes for years; Diablo only had subpar clones to compete with until the current retro fashion revived isometric RPGs. Hearthstone targets a different market from Magic the Gathering games. They've bucked this trend with Heroes of the Storm and Overwatch, but the former as far as I'm aware has not been terribly successful. 4x games may not have a high profile, but there are a lot of them out there and the Civ series is phenomenally successful by the standards of any genre. I don't see Blizzard having any incentive to make a product that may conflict with what Firaxis does. Though this calculation assumes the games are in competition - I have a sense that dedicated 4x gamers are especially prone to collecting games of that type rather than playing, e.g., Civ exclusively.

 

[PhilBowles]

APM skills are inherent to RTS, but that does not mean that they are not exaggerated in Starcraft beyond what they need to be.

Increased automation of tasks where players aren't making decisions often, less focus on click abilities, and more focus on actual tactics over micro would all make it more manageable.

In my limited experience conversing with hardcore Starcraft fans, they seem to be a traditionalist bunch who, aside from complaints on Protoss APM requirements, like the hectic clicking.

It's a game pretty explicitly designed to tap into nostalgia, barely even taking token notice of ways the genre evolved in Starcraft's absence in favour of more or less remaking the original game. It's not surprising that Starcraft fans are "a traditionalist bunch".

Though the steps you suggest would take away the essence of what Starcraft is. As someone said, Blizzard distils its games to the essence of their genre by removing "redundant complexity". Starcraft takes the definition of real-time strategy extremely literally - it's real-time, and it's all strategy. Tactics are marginalised by design - the game is about collecting resources, turning them into units that can destroy your opponent's resources, and stripping away all decisions beyond 'what's my build order?', 'what are the appropriate counters to what my opponent's doing?", "what's my expansion timing?" and "what's my attack timing?" - in other words, the core strategic decisions in any RTS. Everything else is just clicking on things.

 

[Ryika]

APM skills are inherent to RTS, but that does not mean that they are not exaggerated in Starcraft beyond what they need to be.

Increased automation of tasks where players aren't making decisions often, less focus on click abilities, and more focus on actual tactics over micro would all make it more manageable.

In my limited experience conversing with hardcore Starcraft fans, they seem to be a traditionalist bunch who, aside from complaints on Protoss APM requirements, like the hectic clicking.

Which is fine, but it won't help the game appeal to a broader audience.

My favorite RTS remains Red Alert 3, particularly with the Paradox mod that shut down due to a poor mod engine after years of effort.

While it isn't perfect and it certainly has micro intensive moments, it is a bit less hectic than Starcraft in terms of APM.
________________________________________________________

I agree that a Warcraft 4X could be great, or even a well done Starcraft 4X.

I'm pretty sure Red Alert 3 would still become just as Micro-Intensive if played on high level. Any Base Management that you don't have to do will inevitably be translated into being more active with units.

On lower levels, there have been people who have shown that you can play with very low apm (30-40) as long as you manage to play a solid build order and focus on what is important.

But I agree that for a new player sc2 probably looks and feels a lot more intimidating than something like RA3, and that the amount of Cheese and nonsensical strategies that a low-skill player can die can probably be very frustrating.

 

[Ryika]

Spoken like someone only familiar with Blizzard's representatives of the genre, which are very heavily-simplified in every area other than unit micro (sadly, the current fashion for making what are styled retro RTS games like Grey Goo take their cue from the same source, and tend to be extremely simplified games in terms of building, tech, and unit variety that also dispense with Blizzard's APM play). Games like Age of Empires are pretty much setting your formation and A-move to fight (or, in the more sophisticated case of Cossacks, setting up your armies in ranks and squares), as much more of the games' focus is on building, teching, and resource collection, and few units have activated abilities of any kind.

I've actually played quite a few RTS when I was younger and I always had some that I constantly played, starting with AoE, later followed up by Warlords Battlecry 1, 2 and 3, total Annihilation, Command and Conquer, Rise of Nations, Empire Earth... yes, Cossacks, too and quite a few more. All of them would, if played on high level, require tons of APM.

Only Blizzard ever really pushed competitive play in RTSes - a classical RTS has too many moving parts to make them well-suited to competitive play; the same is true of more modern RTS designs like Company of Heroes, and even those are mechanically simple compared with - say - Cossacks (an example I like to use because I consider it the apex of classical RTS design, released at about the time interest in these games was trailing off).

Not sure how this is an argument. Just because other games did not put you into a situation where you needed all your apm to win does not mean you do not need high apm for high level play. All it means that you don't need to learn how to play on a high level.

It's certainly true that like almost all games of the time, classical RTSes were mostly designed for single-player play (and had longer and more satisfying campaigns as a result), but simply being multiplayer-focused is not how most people would define competitive gaming.

I would assume being "competitive" by the very nature of the world requiress some sort of multiplayer-focus.

Another feature of the touted 'Blizzard magic' is that Blizzard tends to target niches where there isn't a great deal of competition - no one else has made even simplified classic RTSes for years; Diablo only had subpar clones to compete with until the current retro fashion revived isometric RPGs. Hearthstone targets a different market from Magic the Gathering games. They've bucked this trend with Heroes of the Storm and Overwatch, but the former as far as I'm aware has not been terribly successful. 4x games may not have a high profile, but there are a lot of them out there and the Civ series is phenomenally successful by the standards of any genre. I don't see Blizzard having any incentive to make a product that may conflict with what Firaxis does. Though this calculation assumes the games are in competition - I have a sense that dedicated 4x gamers are especially prone to collecting games of that type rather than playing, e.g., Civ exclusively.

I don't see how this would be an argument against a Blizzard 4X. Blizzard has recently started putting their stamp on a few genres that they had not been active in and all of these genres have already been active before Blizzard decided to add a game to the existing ones. One can be assured that if a genre exists, part of the general Blizzard Audience will be attracted to that genre and parts of the people playing that genre would enjoy Blizzard's take on the game.

 

[Galgus]

It does seem built around nostalgia to some extent, with few things really shaking up play from the original.

Though one change that has always bugged me is the Roach - it doesn't seem to fit the Zerg theme as a kind of durable frontline ranged unit.

I've always seen the race as being about overrunning enemies with units that will die a lot, but can simply overwhelm them: not using a generic tough ranged unit as bread and butter.
____

As an example of something that didn't change, Vikings seem like they were meant to be a great raiding unit to somewhat replace drops, but in implementation they are damned useless on the ground.
____________________________________________________________________

In my opinion, real tactical diversity would appeal to a broader audience much better than APM focus.

There is nothing more satisfying in RTS than winning with a clutch, unconventional tactic that could have failed were things a little different, but succeeded.

A good RTS, in my opinion, should tap into player creativity rather than direct them to optimize set build orders and stale match-ups.

(Red Alert 3 was certainly guilty of some stale build orders, though in the 2v2 mode I played most often it was less strict.)

 

[Galgus]

I'm pretty sure Red Alert 3 would still become just as Micro-Intensive if played on high level. Any Base Management that you don't have to do will inevitably be translated into being more active with units.

On lower levels, there have been people who have shown that you can play with very low apm (30-40) as long as you manage to play a solid build order and focus on what is important.

But I agree that for a new player sc2 probably looks and feels a lot more intimidating than something like RA3, and that the amount of Cheese and nonsensical strategies that a low-skill player can die can probably be very frustrating.

There is certainly micro in the game, but despite every unit by design having a single ability it is far less APM focused.

Army sizes are generally smaller, there is no supply cap, and there aren't actually many abilities that are "click thing on thing" or an equivalent to micro-intensive drops.

That isn't to say that high APM doesn't help, but it is less crucial than it is in Starcraft 2.

To even use many of the top tactics and units properly in Starcraft 2 one needs very high APM: particularly if they are double tasking it with base management.
________________________

@PhilBowles

Somewhat off-topic, I don't think Overwatch has much direct competition aside the long-lived classic TF2.

Though it isn't a spiritual successor, the two games share much in common in terms of feel and design philosophy.

 

[Ryika]

There is certainly micro in the game, but despite every unit by design having a single ability it is far less APM focused.

Army sizes are generally smaller, there is no supply cap, and there aren't actually many abilities that are "click thing on thing" or an equivalent to micro-intensive drops.

In a battle where 2 players get 2 units each and fight against each other 100 times, the player who has higher apm (assuming the difference is big enough and both players know how optimal unit management works) will win a lot more often in pretty much any rts.

The less stuff there is to control, the more effort players will put into controlling this stuff on higher level.

That isn't to say that high APM doesn't help, but it is less crucial than it is in Starcraft 2.

To even use many of the top tactics and units properly in Starcraft 2 one needs very high APM: particularly if they are double tasking it with base management.

Well, yes and no. APM are not crucial in SC2. I have managed to become High-Diamond by just playing the same optimized strategy with about 40-50 apm again and again (was Mid-Master while playing "properly").

So the game can easily be played with low apm until you reach a certain level. It is true that the peak is dominated by players who know their strategies AND have Gosu Korean Micro, but someone who just wants to play the game should in general not care too much about that.

The problem is really that the game does a terrible job at teaching players what to focus on and what to ignore when they start.

 

[Galgus]

True, APM will always be a crucial factor, but how much it matters relative to other things can change.

Micromanaging Cryocopters and Multigunners is easier than, say, managing a pro-level Medivac drop hit and run tactic.

In my opinion the limited, or "optimized" strategic options is a symptom of Blizzard focusing on APM over tactics.

It is probably a difference in player archetype, but I'd much rather win my way than have a better chance of winning with standard options I find boring.

I like actual tactical choice over what often boils down to a spreadsheet of what to do.
_____________________________

So far as teaching goes, I think a training mode where it asks players to build such and such and have so many units in a set time would help, with outlines for different match-ups.

Ideally players should be able to learn a game well without ever needing to leave the game to read about it.

 

[Ryika]

True, APM will always be a crucial factor, but how much it matters relative to other things can change.

Micromanaging Cryocopters and Multigunners is easier than, say, managing a pro-level Medivac drop hit and run tactic.

Sure, but you do not need to "manage a pro-level Medivac drop hin and run tactic". That's pro-level stuff, for any normal Player "Build Base, Build Big Army, Attack with Big Army." is a very valid Strategy.

In my opinion the limited, or "optimized" strategic options is a symptom of Blizzard focusing on APM over tactics.

It is probably a difference in player archetype, but I'd much rather win my way than have a better chance of winning with standard options I find boring.

I like actual tactical choice over what often boils down to a spreadsheet of what to do.

Any competitive rts will always boil down to having a few valid opening strategies that need to be learned and then understanding what your opponent does and countering it as good as you can.

So far as teaching goes, I think a training mode where it asks players to build such and such and have so many units in a set time would help, with outlines for different match-ups.

Ideally players should be able to learn a game well without ever needing to leave the game to read about it.

That wasn't really what I meant, I meant things like Day[9]s 'Probes and Pylons'-Newbie video:


Link to video.

That one hour spent watching this video will teach a new player more than the whole of SC2s internal resources do. (<- Well, can't speak for the new expansion)

 

[Galgus]

You are right, I've been focusing far too much on top level play in talking about Starcraft 2, which isn't a fair point of analysis or comparison with other RTS games.
_____________________________

The number of valid strategies can be increased, though.

The number will always be limited, but it is possible to make more things viable, particularly in casual play.
_______________________________

Instructional videos are great, but feel like it would be even better if that information could be incorporated into the game proper.

I'll have to watch through the video for Terran tips, since it seems to be PvT and I'm a Terran player.

Anyway, thanks for posting it!

 

[Ryika]

You are right, I've been focusing far too much on top level play in talking about Starcraft 2, which isn't a fair point of analysis or comparison with other RTS games.

Well, to be fair: Those strategies are the most fun to watch so it's a pity that they're so much harder to play. Although the fact that they are hard to play probably contributes greatly to why they are so enjoyable to watch.

The number of valid strategies can be increased, though.

The number will always be limited, but it is possible to make more things viable, particularly in casual play.

That's true and I'd argue that here SC2s Design is indeed a problem, because of the very volatile nature of combat. Timings are super-important and playing little variations can already screw the player.

Instructional videos are great, but feel like it would be even better if that information could be incorporated into the game proper.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. A ton of the not-so-obvious information just is not available ingame. Build orders really don't mean much if one doesn't get to learn the basics like "Don't queue stuff!", "Always build workers!" (Terran/Protoss), etc.

I'll have to watch through the video for Terran tips, since it seems to be PvT and I'm a Terran player.

Anyway, thanks for posting it!

Just keep in mind that the video is super-old. While the basics should still be accurate, the BOs that are used are horribly out of date.

 

[CaptMikeP]

personally I think this was a much needed DLC but it only put the brakes on an elevator that's free-falling into oblivion. The fact this game needs so many mods shows how much it's lacking. They need to get this game together. Starships was a complete waste of time and resources.

 

[Galgus]

@Ryika

I feel like Vikings could be an easier and earlier but perhaps less powerful version of drops if their ground form was any good and/or the transform was faster.
_____________________

That video made me wish that queing set them up to build without immediately taking the resources, to make it not suboptimal to ever use ques.

Building workers is a good example of something that could afford to be more automated in my opinion - rarely do players make meaningful decisions there.

Anyway, my current scrub Terran tactics revolve mostly around trying to murder the enemy economy with Liberators and then mix them with Battlecruisers to destroy the enemy base.
_____________________________________

@CaptMikeP

Civ 5 is also better with a ton of mods, and it has a lot more big ones than BE.

Starships would have been great if it was Sid Meiers: Pirates! in space I think, or if it had more depth than the mobile game it is.

 

[Westwall]

personally I think this was a much needed DLC but it only put the brakes on an elevator that's free-falling into oblivion.

I wouldn't even go that far.

More like it slowed the fall, and we're still not sure what the negative consequences will be.

Just like their Wonder Patch didn't improve wonders at all, and in many cases made wonders even worse and more worthless.

 

[Gorbles]

personally I think this was a much needed DLC but it only put the brakes on an elevator that's free-falling into oblivion. The fact this game needs so many mods shows how much it's lacking. They need to get this game together. Starships was a complete waste of time and resources.

This is a funny line to watch people agree with considering how dependent CiV's activity is on the modding scene.

 

[Gort]

More and better mods for BE would be a positive step. Civ 5 is much better-supported on that front and is a better game for it.

With DLL mod support BE would be a much better game.

 

[Gorbles]

Yeah, Acken mentioned it earlier (in this thread?). The CiV DLL was released between the first and second expansions (also bear in mind the increased development cycle for G&K compared to RT).

I'm in agreement there, but we're not past the corresponding window in BE's lifecycle yet.

 

[Hail]

That one hour spent watching this video will teach a new player more than the whole of SC2s internal resources do. (<- Well, can't speak for the new expansion)

I learned new things today.
apparently Will & Dave are not constantly making probes and are often supply blocked.
this explains why civ:bert is not as awesome as it could have been.