Go Back   Hardware Canucks > SOFTWARE > Gaming

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old May 6, 2013, 02:39 PM
MVP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 410
Default

RTS isn't pure strategy. The genre was invented to sort of combat TBS (turn based strategy) by putting a clock on you. When people see RTS, they think "Oh! It's a strategy game, lots of strategy and time to think!" Nope.
Because it's not turn based, it opens up so many more possibilities. Such as fog of war and meta; I know he's going do that, so I'm going to to this. But I know he knows I know so I'll do this, etc.

A proper RTS (SC2) is far more than just strategy. It not only removes the randomness factor (FPS recoil/dice rolling), but it sets a skill gap that can't be crossed over. For example, an average player on CS could headshot a pro if conditions are favourable. But there's no way an average player will randomly take a game off a pro in SC2, ever. Much like actually sports, for an average dude to play Roger Federer, you'll NEVER take a point off him.

SC actually started with the RPS thing. It was Attack / Defend / Expand. Attack > expand > defend > attack. So people would start faking a defense and then attacking. Then people knew they knew, so they did this and then that, etc. etc. It evolved into something much greater.

Don't take Pabz0r545 too personally. Once they hit a certain rank they get conceited for a while until someone slams the hammer on them. (he apologized so he's cool now.)
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old May 6, 2013, 02:41 PM
Pabz0r545's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,301

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeetard View Post
I expressed my opinion as nice as I could. No need to be a dick about it.

I was quite good at CoH multiplayer. Again, I just found myself doing the exact same things on the same maps over and over again, against different opponents. If you find a strategy that works, why would you change it? Gets boring though.
Sorry if I came across as a dick that was not the intention. That is just my opinion based on your statements which I completely disagree with. I didn't think it came across like that but I can see the confusion now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muse108dc View Post
To an extent I agree but mostly no. Games like StarCraft are exactly as you say, micro intensive and you have to be able play a certain way to win. There are good RTS out there, SupCom is still my favorite, Sins of a Solar Empire I like but it takes much too long to play.

Really the answer is RTS need bigger maps, larger scale, but we've sort of driven it to the opposite with StarCraft and MOBAs due to wanting quick games and sadly I dont see this changing any time soon.
I gotta disagree with the bigger maps statements. I already often have games that near 45 minutes long and maintianing 180+ APM throughout the game can become quite mentally exhausting.
__________________
I'm a damn hoarder lol.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old May 6, 2013, 02:49 PM
muse108dc's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver North
Posts: 1,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pabz0r545 View Post
I gotta disagree with the bigger maps statements. I already often have games that near 45 minutes long and maintianing 180+ APM throughout the game can become quite mentally exhausting.
See thats the other issue. Obsessive micro. There is nothing strategic, or fun, about having to click 1000 times a minute to stay competitive. Its probably the main reason I cannot get into StarCraft multiplayer at all. Whats wrong with putting a unit build cue on repeat? Whats wrong with having patrols and units that can move and shoot? Hell, whats wrong with inexhaustible resources?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old May 6, 2013, 03:04 PM
MVP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muse108dc View Post
Whats wrong with putting a unit build cue on repeat? Whats wrong with having patrols and units that can move and shoot? Hell, whats wrong with inexhaustible resources?
Nothing wrong with the first one, you're losing out on resource efficiency so that only hurts you, which is perfect.

Units can patrol and there's units that can move while shooting. Balance needs to be considered though; if everything moves while shooting, you will not have any variety in units.

Lots of things wrong with inexhaustible resources. One of the strategies is to starve out your opponent. And generally balancing a game would be extremely difficult.


Most people look at gaming as relaxing and easy as opposed to challenging, difficult, and balanced. SC2 being the latter makes the majority of people turn away.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old May 6, 2013, 03:04 PM
MpG's Avatar
MpG MpG is offline
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 3,143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muse108dc View Post
See thats the other issue. Obsessive micro. There is nothing strategic, or fun, about having to click 1000 times a minute to stay competitive. Its probably the main reason I cannot get into StarCraft multiplayer at all. Whats wrong with putting a unit build cue on repeat? Whats wrong with having patrols and units that can move and shoot? Hell, whats wrong with inexhaustible resources?
Mirrors a lot of my own thoughts. The phenomenon of obsessive micro is pretty much what's dulled my own interest in RTS's. I figure it's a little like jazz - nothing kills the enjoyment more than taking it too seriously.

Although on the flip side, the most boring part of an RTS game is the end-game curbstomp - the point at which your victory is basically inevitable, but it takes time to go around and actually make it happen. And giant-scale games like Sins and GalCiv can be absolutely brutal for that.
__________________
i7 2600K | ASUS Maximus IV GENE-Z | 580GTX | Corsair DDR3-2133
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old May 6, 2013, 03:09 PM
MVP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 410
Default

Obsessive micro part is way overexaggerated and I highly doubt that's the reason you can't be competitive in SC2.

During my placement matches, I just attack moved my army into their base and won with 1 click. I did not pay attention to my army.
I won because I had a bigger and better army. I had a bigger army because I managed my resources better. I had a better army because I read my opponent's strategy.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old May 6, 2013, 03:12 PM
supaflyx3's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chilliwack BC
Posts: 2,536

My System Specs

Default

RTS (SC2 in particular) also help with muscle memory because you're clicking and hitting keys 300+ times a minute, it also keeps your brain moving so at the end of the day you feel more accomplished after finishing a few matches than if you had just sat around watching tv.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old May 6, 2013, 03:53 PM
Pabz0r545's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,301

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muse108dc View Post
See thats the other issue. Obsessive micro. There is nothing strategic, or fun, about having to click 1000 times a minute to stay competitive. Its probably the main reason I cannot get into StarCraft multiplayer at all. Whats wrong with putting a unit build cue on repeat? Whats wrong with having patrols and units that can move and shoot? Hell, whats wrong with inexhaustible resources?

It's not about obsessive micro. It's about being able to micro your army at the same time as macroing. Not only that to patrol move units and not micro is skill-less and simply just not fun to play and especially not fun for the viewers.

Not sure what you mean by putting unit build cue on repeat but I am going to guess that it will auto build units for you repeatedly which also removes the multitasking skill from the game and thus makes for a skill-less match enabling the lesser player to have a similar chance.

What is wrong with inexhaustible resources is that it promotes turtling and thus makes for a lame, non action filled game. The need to expand and have map control is a vital part of making a game not draw out for 2+ hours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YoungMan View Post
Obsessive micro part is way overexaggerated and I highly doubt that's the reason you can't be competitive in SC2.

During my placement matches, I just attack moved my army into their base and won with 1 click. I did not pay attention to my army.
I won because I had a bigger and better army. I had a bigger army because I managed my resources better. I had a better army because I read my opponent's strategy.
You've been watching the filtersc2 tutorials haven't you? ;)
__________________
I'm a damn hoarder lol.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old May 6, 2013, 07:39 PM
headsh0t's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 2,568

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeetard View Post
I expressed my opinion as nice as I could. No need to be a dick about it.

I was quite good at CoH multiplayer. Again, I just found myself doing the exact same things on the same maps over and over again, against different opponents. If you find a strategy that works, why would you change it? Gets boring though.
You had it coming with the topic of this post. Very passive aggressive.

I play Starcraft mostly for RTS but play others every once in a while. Civ5 is a nice turn based strategy to play with friends. Command and Conquer now and then, but Starcraft has the highest skill ceiling and is best imo. You can be a complete noob and enjoy the game but there is tons of ways to improve how you play, it's not as easy as copying a build order and winning (besides lower leagues in SC2). Everything is quite balanced, and they're always tweaking so there is a counter for everything. It's not like rock, paper, scissors, it's more like real-time speed chess. You always have to think about what you opponent may be trying to do, or more importantly; what he can't be doing and exploit that.

FPS games are the same way, there may be guns that are "OP" that people start using after watching streamers, etc. People learn different 'strategies' on different maps. You have to think about where your opponents might be coming from - or not and exploit that. In fact pretty much any game is like that.

I'm not a fan of army only RTS games like COH and no building 3 buildings at the start of the match doesn't count.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old May 6, 2013, 07:57 PM
Soultribunal's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 8,066

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeetard View Post
RTS games are nothing more than rock paper scissors to me. I just don't get where the Strategy is? He's doing this, I counter with this. It's all pretty much set in stone. All players wind up with a successful system and just repeat it ad nauseum. Never saw the appeal, tried to like it but couldn't. Too much button mashing for my tastes too. There is a lot less smarts to this than people think.

I loved Company of Heroes though. To me it was actual strategy. You had to use terrain and fields of fire. Flanking and barricades, actual war tactics.

So chime in, what's the appeal to you?
I think some of the latest RTS can be a bit of a...drag because the scope and way they do things now is lost out on in How streamlined they had to make the games.
However if you look in depth at games like Sins of a Solar Empire, Endless Space, MOO, MOO2 X-Com there really isn't a pre-defined Rock Paper Scissors.

Sure, you can have and read some plans and strategy's that work and work well, but you cannot adhere to them alone or counter with one or another and win outright. Endless space if any other game has taught me that. Now RTS is broken down like such:

Games like SC2 and the like are tactical. The scope of what you do has no ripple. Manage your resources, prepare yourself as best you can and adapt to changing battlefield situations on the fly.
There is no great risk/reward to what you do other than quick and painful death or ultimate glory in a small predefided loop.
Endless space on the other hand has some tactical combat but a lot of deep strategic thinking involved in order to faciliatate what either can be a victory or defeat.
I cannot count the number of times I've been on the cusp in ES, only to have it shattered because my tactical thinking got in the way.

Perhaps the RTS genre has changed to a degree. I see it as two sides of the same coin for what games offer. It all depends on what you personally enjoy and if neither appeals than neither appeals.
If we all loved the same thing there would only ever need to be a few games at most.

My ramble at least anyways.

There are games that offer more depth. If you are willing to find them.

-ST
__________________




"We know not why he calls for us, only that when he does we must answer" - DMP 2009

"Dear Iceberg, I am sorry to hear about global warming. Karma is a bitch. Signed - Titanic"

I would rather believe and find god doesn't exist than to not believe and find that he does.

www.realhardwarereviews.com
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What to do with old games muse108dc Gaming 8 January 24, 2011 09:36 AM
FS: NDS lite package, PS3 games+accessories, PC games+accessories... 56k BEWARE snaggletooth Buy/Sell & Trade 9 November 25, 2009 09:21 PM
Win 7 64 and games? upcoast604 O/S's, Drivers & General Software 3 March 6, 2009 09:19 PM
used games WolfBane Buy/Sell & Trade 0 August 9, 2008 12:38 PM
WTB: PS3 Games Primu$ Buy/Sell & Trade 1 May 28, 2008 04:47 PM