StarCraft II
- Thread starter Kantham
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
To qualify my previous statement, too much micro sucks. SupCom requires too much base micro to win. Starcraft requires too much unit micro to win. SupCom 2 is running towards the middle... where is Starcraft 2? FURTHER into unit micro!
Unit micro is HORRIBLE. It has nothing to do with strategy versus tactics. It has everything to do with being required to focus your attention on something that shouldn't NEED attention.
Unit micro is HORRIBLE. It has nothing to do with strategy versus tactics. It has everything to do with being required to focus your attention on something that shouldn't NEED attention.
I think it comes much more down to the actual nature of the micro tactics. For instance in StarCraft you see a lot of x zerglings kill x marines if you micro it right. There was also the instances where you'd want a large group of units to perform a special attack of some sort, but you wanted each unit to target a different enemy. I'm not seeing nearly as much of that. Instead there appears to be a much bigger emphasis on hard counters, and special unit abilities. I think in this way it actually opens up this portion of the gameplay to a larger number of people. It's very much like the things they did well in Dawn of War II.
I think you shouldn't have to qualify it at all. Micro simply goes away from the spirit of an over head perspective game about controlling armies. I think any game designed like that should be only focused on strategy and some tactics depending on the scale. If I wanted "micro" or in other words, reaction speed and precision, I'd play an FPS game.
A) The sad thing is, a lot of the time you can and it's leaning way too far into that direction than it should be. In fact most of the time it's stupid and pointlessly forced micro, similar to how in FPS or other games there can be forced difficulty by spawning endless enemies or giving enemies auto aim instead of actually having advanced AI.
B) Nah, in FPS games such as MW2 I'd say it's like %25 tactics and %75 micro and %0 strategy while with RTS games it should be something like %70 strategy, %25 tactics (depending on which way they want to go while designing the game), but micro should be locked at like %5 or lower, as low technology or design possibly allows.
C) Meh, I still think it's stupid to have any kind of micro focus in an over head perspective game about controlling armies.
D) So basically crappy micro gameplay is picking up the slack for lacking and shallow strategy gameplay?
E) Just depends on what you like to watch and play. RTS aren't as popular as FPS for a reason.
F) It's not about noobing anything down, just changing the type of skill required from a stupid and pointless one to one that's more worthwhile and makes more sense when taking the game's design into account.
Last edited:
So far what I've seen from gameplay videos are, get the high ground and spam the enemy from where he can't hit you, and if he can hit you, medevac.
Dawn of War 2 is intentionally unit micro though, and for good reason: It feels more like an FPS than an RTS. That was how they wanted it to feel.
Frankly, adding retarded amounts of unit micro makes people want to stop playing the game because it introduces a skill gap even worse than that of UT200X. Nobody likes to lose because they haven't played the game for 8500 hours and spend 15,000 more researching crappy tactics.
DoW2 does unit micro well because you don't have to think about microing. The majority of the action takes place with no intervention and you can plan your tactics out in advance... like a field commander.
That doesn't mean Starcraft 2 will be unpopular. I'm sure there will be plenty of people that suck at the game willing to continue playing it even though they never win (partially because it's a
I only qualify it because every RTS game has a certain level of micro, and I understand that. Go overboard on micro, though, and you make your game bad to play.
The problem with this argument is that the type of skill gap you're talking about is something that 90% of the players never see. This is stuff that really only see done well in professional competition. The vast majority of players get by just fine without it. The only reason we know about it is because all the casual players moved to BGH and fastest maps meaning anyone wanting to play vanilla ends up playing with the competitive players. Even then your issue there is going to be much more about not having refined builds and strategy. The only reason I know anything about StarCraft micro is from playing the micro wars custom map.
I would argue that this isn't the case at all. In fact it's quite the opposite. The reason it works so well in Dawn of War is because that's ALL you have to worry about. In fact the micro game is much more important in Dawn of War II than it is in StarCraft. You probably won't get above an intermediate trueskill of 20 without a good micro game.
Again the difference is simply the type of micro. Most people wouldn't even think of thing things that make up the micro in StarCraft. However, people instinctively understand how to use special unit abilities, skirt slow units, attack tanks with rockets, and run away from grenades. It just comes naturally.
In my opinion they already have. The big players have already been involved in early testing, and the rest will come in during the beta. The rest are already analyzing this thing to pieces. They've already put a ton into this game, and it's not even released.
I can agree with this. I think it's important to realize that micro is what makes an RTS what it is. Without the ability to manage your army from moment to moment in real time you'd just have a turn based strategy game. That's why ever since the original WarCraft these games have always trended towards tactical gameplay and special unit abilities. If you want a game that is mostly strategy you should be playing risk. The question is just if we're adding these elements because they add value or because they're just hard to do?
Unfortunately, you can be sure that more people will learn it now than learned it then. Blizzard games have a much larger audience now, particularly in the obsessively insane. The audience they attracted ten years ago is quite drastically different now.
The point is, micro in DoW2 isn't something you have to be constantly concerned with. Part of this is that Relic made the interface nicer for activating unit special abilities, and part of it is, as I said before, that the game feels more like an FPS than an RTS (intentionally).
I don't know who was involved in what, but I do know that they will have a hard time transitioning people that weren't involved and played competitively out of the game they already know inside out to a game that is different.
RED LEADER MOVE 5 FEET WEST, RED LEADER STOP, RED LEADER ATTACK NEAREST ENEMY MARINE, RED LEADER MOVE 5 FEET WEST, RED LEADER STOP, RED LEADER ATTACK NEAREST ENEMY MARINE, RED LEADER MOVE 5 FEET WEST, RED LEADER STOP, RED LEADER ATTACK NEAREST ENEMY MARINE, RED LEADER MOVE 5 FEET WEST, RED LEADER STOP, RED LEADER ATTACK NEAREST ENEMY MARINE.
This is how real wars are fought, people! Back in the day when they didn't have phones the generals would stand nearby shouting.
This is how real wars are fought, people! Back in the day when they didn't have phones the generals would stand nearby shouting.
That is a personal opinion and semantics, not an argument. Let's let the designers of RTS games decide what the spirit of their games is, shall we?
The only example I can really see of this is how you have to split workers at the beginning of a match. Even that is only really necessary when you're playing against others that are doing it, else you're not going to be at a disadvantage for not doing it. Players make the metagame.
If you dislike micro in Starcraft, there's an option made specifically for you: attack move. Just select units, press A and click the ground somewhere and your units will move there while attacking anything in sight. No micro required.
Point is, individually managing your units works better, for obvious reasons. Players able to do this should be rewarded for it, especially since they're spending time and attention on things other than their economy and build.
MW2 or even CoD4 are not the prime examples of the FPS gameplay I'm talking about. MW2 is an unbalanced buggy crapfest while CoD4 eliminated any form of strategy by employing a randomized spawn system and killcam, making map control irrelevant.B) Nah, in FPS games such as MW2 I'd say it's like %25 tactics and %75 micro and %0 strategy while with RTS games it should be something like %70 strategy, %25 tactics (depending on which way they want to go while designing the game), but micro should be locked at like %5 or lower, as low technology or design possibly allows.
Furthermore I never mentioned strategy in FPS, I said micro in RTS is analogous to good movement in FPS in the sense that you can win without it, but using it increases your chances.
Opinion and semantics.
The two are not mutually exclusive, which was the entire point of my post. If you added an element of micromanagement to Supcom, would that make the strategic gameplay suddenly any shallower? Or would it just add another element to the game that you could use to your advantage or could open up new strategic possibilties? This is a rhetorical question, by the way. Just in case.
Korea. 'Nuff said.
Here you're once again stating that strategy and tactics are mutually exclusive. The strategic gameplay is still there, however now there's the OPTION to control your units for better results.
If anything, it opens up MORE strategic options.
A unit with weak armor can suddenly be used for defense if you have the option of manually keeping it out of fire, which opens up a slew of possible builds or early contains.
Another example, from the vblog I'll link later on in this post, from SC2. Nullifiers/sentries really aren't that strong a unit. Their attack is pretty weak, not a ton of armor, but they do have a special ability that lets you throw up a forcefield, blocking units from passing through that area. In that particular match, a player techs to sentries immediately because he wants to use those for early defense. Since they mostly cost gas to build, he'll save up enough minerals to do a fast expansion while his bases are covered by micromanaging those sentries.
What you see here is an instance where micromanage actually ADDS to the strategic possibilities. Instead of just building fixed base defense or tons of cheap fodder units, a player can now choose a tech build safely as long as he can manage to defend his bases with 'weak' units.
sir_brizz said:
Again, personal preference. Why shouldn't units need attention? Or why shouldn't your base be micromanaged? Because you don't really like doing it? You don't have to. Play against D- players on ICcup/b.net and I can guarantee you can just wall in, spam a ****load of battlecruisers and tanks and attack-move them all into your opponents base and still have a good chance of winning.
Why not just make a menu that lets you pick a build order and unit composition and that's it? You'll just press play, it'll do everything for you, you'll get to watch some cool explosions and then you get message whether you won or lost. Rock, paper, scissors with explosions, really...
After all, if micro is so irrelevant, why even bother with all the "giving orders" and "building units"? It's about strategy, man!
My opinion, which is not a rare one, is that both micro and macro are equally important in RTS games. Micro (unit movement, base building, scouting) is what enables you to complete your macro goals as efficiently as possible, while macro (economy, build orders, map control) will supply the funds and material to micro with and, for a large part, consists of your battle plan and strategy. Macro is what you do, micro is how you do it. Picking the right strategy but executing it too slow will result in a disadvantage, just like having a **** strategy with lots of micromanagement will result in a disadvantage. Having only one or the other makes for a very incomplete game.
If you still don't believe Starcraft features any strategy, check out Day[9]'s videoblog, Day[9]Daily.
This one, for example, discussing SC2 strategy using previous SC1 knowledge and concepts.
Last edited:
Nah, it would make it shallower as focus would be drawn off it and the game would change.
Extreme analogy in fps games: If you add special movement options to the old Rainbow Six games and effectively turn them into insta-gib Warsow, would that take away from the tactical nature of the game? Theoretically you only add another element to the game that can be used..
This is rethorical too, btw. Obviously, this would take away from the tactical nature of the game. Tactics are still important, but something else suddenly became more important: Reflexes and twitch-aiming.
This is an extreme example, obviously, but even small changes have an effect. E.g. for an outside the UT games are all the same, but for people who are really into them one is slower or faster than the other, to the point that they don't enjoy all of them equally.
If you enjoy tactical shooters there is a certain likelihood that you enjoy them precisely because they are stripped bare of the reflexes and weird movement and are only about tactics and positioning.
I.e. people who enjoy SupCom enjoy it because they don't have to micromanage individual units, each with their own special abilities and maybe even rpg-like upgrades and what-not, but they can focus on the grand scheme of things.
On the flipside, if you are a fan of Warsow you probably like it because of the twitchy gameplay. I.e. if you like Warcraft 3 you probably like it because each unit has special powers and has to be nurtured constantly to produce the best results.
Personally, I'm usually not much of a fan of a lot of micromanagement in RTS games unless it's made bearable with a pause button or a slow pace. So personally I would welcome changes that make the game more usable for me and if it's seen as dumbing down the game I can understand that, but to be honest, I would enjoy a dumbed down version of StarCraft more than StarCraft.
Umm, that is what argument's are for, to give reason to why your opinions are superior. You don't argue over facts such as, "Why sir, I do say that is the color green because the electromagnetic radiation is between the wavelengths of this and that!" You sure are dismissing our points as opinions a lot despite this.
If you used that "designers choice" excuse for every game it's basically an excuse for devs to make ****ty games. Yeah, sure, they have an option to and are completely free to do so, but I can also argue for why I think they shouldn't or why in my opinion I think it is bad.Proving my point?
If there's a market for RTS micro gameplay and grindfest mmorpgs, there's probably a market for RTS strategy gameplay. I heard Empire: Total War was decently to well received. *gasp* Or you can just click a button and have whatever units stay as far away from the enemy as they can while still attacking. That way you can fully focus on good elements of gameplay instead of sitting there clicking attack, run, attack, run, attack, run like an idiot. Yay!
PS: Just so we don't go too far off my point, I think that micro is a bad gameplay element because it is forced and an artificial difficulty (or complexity), similar to how auto aiming or endlessly spawning AI is forced and is an artificial difficultly, which in turn makes it a bad gameplay element imo. I think most people would agree that the latter is a bad gameplay element.
Last edited:
What you're describing there is adding in something that completely throws off game balance. Jumping-flying movement style directly contradicts the very principle of R6 gameplay: stay in cover or you're dead. This is bad game design and is to be avoided at all costs, micro or not. Not really a good example. I never advocated what sir_brizz described as "going overboard with micro" and I certainly don't advocate adding guns to football games, for example.
What I mean is something that when a unit/unit group A has two modes of attack (say, machine guns vs infantry and longrange V8 missiles vs armor), instead of having the unit automatically pick the right target and switch to the right attack mode for it, it will only switch attack modes when you tell it to. Thus, an enemy can take advantage of this by attacking unit A with their counter to the current attack mode. For instance, telling their tanks to fire at it when it's in machine gun mode.
It would, indeed take some attention away from macro, but only if you're not used to this. The big strategy is still in place, you're not going to be rethinking it every two seconds. The wheels will keep on turning, but in the meantime, you'll have something to do.
However, from my experience playing Supcom, for a large part of the match you're basically doing nothing. You'll be waiting for upgrades/units to finish or you'll be waiting for an attack to succeed/fail. Especially since the game is so methodical, you're gonna want to wait for that 'critical mass' before you even attack, else it's just a pointless waste of units.
The general pace of the game is just low.
Only in the late game, with tons of multi-pronged attacks going on all over the map, did I ever have to pay as much attention as I usually do in SC or AoE3.
I'm not saying it's brainless, it's just that I'm used to a higher pace of gameplay and during the time I'm waiting for my army to build I just keep wishing I could send employ some small scale tactics to harass/delay the opponent.
Thing is, this ability to multitask both your strategy and unit micro is what makes SC such an immensely competitive and, IMO, fun game.
It doesn't downplay strategy at all. Attacking at the wrong time is still attacking at the wrong time, and a countered unit is still a countered unit. However, when you ARE using the right opportunity to attack with the right units, micro will enable you to maximize the damage, whereas if you couldn't, the outcome of that attack would be largely set in stone.
I refer to your first paragraph as mere opinion since you're making baseless statements about the spirit of RTS games when the current system has been in place and worked for over ten years and counting, which directly contradicts that statement.
A bad game is a bad game, no arguing over that, but you might notice I'm not using that argument for every other ****ty game out there.
You're arguing that an existing franchise would be better if it discarded it's entire fundamental gameplay style, which I think would be a decision that's left to the designer of said game. Sales numbers, popularity and the amount/longevity of e-sports competition speak for themselves to prove that their decisions are successful.
From what I've seen (and played in the previous entries), it's more like a turn-based boardgame where you get to order entire regiments of units around in short battles rather than a traditional RTS game. Turns lasting 5+ minutes per player are not commonplace in RTS. Turn based strategy? Sure.
The battles themselves, at least in Rome:Total War, were no more complicated than "flank if you can, cavalry is weak vs pikemen, swordmen slaughter archers so keep them at the back."
That was it.
I don't know if they've greatly expanded on this since then, but I'm inclined not to believe so.
Good elements of that game being? Building more units?
Yes, let's spell all the tactical options out for the players so that we can turn the game into the example I described in the last paragraph of my previous post.
Also, how is this even different? All it 'adds' to the game is that you can largely ignore your units as long as they are set to their proper attack mode.
The micro is still there, it's just boring now. You still order the unit to stay out of range, just in a very dry, unexciting and mostly very little demanding fashion.
Why not have a 'raid expansion' mode too, and the unit will go out and attack weakly defended expansions on it's own?
With 'proper' micro, if you are going for a build that employs units in a role that is not naturally suited to them, you'd damn well better know what you're doing and make sure they survive. It's one of the weaknesses of that particular build, and a prime example of risk vs. reward gameplay, one of the cornerstones of gameplay design.
What I mean is something that when a unit/unit group A has two modes of attack (say, machine guns vs infantry and longrange V8 missiles vs armor), instead of having the unit automatically pick the right target and switch to the right attack mode for it, it will only switch attack modes when you tell it to. Thus, an enemy can take advantage of this by attacking unit A with their counter to the current attack mode. For instance, telling their tanks to fire at it when it's in machine gun mode.
It would, indeed take some attention away from macro, but only if you're not used to this. The big strategy is still in place, you're not going to be rethinking it every two seconds. The wheels will keep on turning, but in the meantime, you'll have something to do.
However, from my experience playing Supcom, for a large part of the match you're basically doing nothing. You'll be waiting for upgrades/units to finish or you'll be waiting for an attack to succeed/fail. Especially since the game is so methodical, you're gonna want to wait for that 'critical mass' before you even attack, else it's just a pointless waste of units.
The general pace of the game is just low.
Only in the late game, with tons of multi-pronged attacks going on all over the map, did I ever have to pay as much attention as I usually do in SC or AoE3.
I'm not saying it's brainless, it's just that I'm used to a higher pace of gameplay and during the time I'm waiting for my army to build I just keep wishing I could send employ some small scale tactics to harass/delay the opponent.
Thing is, this ability to multitask both your strategy and unit micro is what makes SC such an immensely competitive and, IMO, fun game.
It doesn't downplay strategy at all. Attacking at the wrong time is still attacking at the wrong time, and a countered unit is still a countered unit. However, when you ARE using the right opportunity to attack with the right units, micro will enable you to maximize the damage, whereas if you couldn't, the outcome of that attack would be largely set in stone.
Problem is, several million Starcraft players disagree with you on this, and have done so for the last decade.Umm, that is what argument's are for, to give reason to why your opinions are superior. You don't argue over facts such as, "Why sir, I do say that is the color green because the electromagnetic radiation is between the wavelengths of this and that!" You sure are dismissing our points as opinions a lot despite this.
I refer to your first paragraph as mere opinion since you're making baseless statements about the spirit of RTS games when the current system has been in place and worked for over ten years and counting, which directly contradicts that statement.
A bad game is a bad game, no arguing over that, but you might notice I'm not using that argument for every other ****ty game out there.
You're arguing that an existing franchise would be better if it discarded it's entire fundamental gameplay style, which I think would be a decision that's left to the designer of said game. Sales numbers, popularity and the amount/longevity of e-sports competition speak for themselves to prove that their decisions are successful.
From what I've seen, Empire looks like a good game and certainly appeals to certain people. However, is it even remotely similar to RTS games?Proving my point?
From what I've seen (and played in the previous entries), it's more like a turn-based boardgame where you get to order entire regiments of units around in short battles rather than a traditional RTS game. Turns lasting 5+ minutes per player are not commonplace in RTS. Turn based strategy? Sure.
The battles themselves, at least in Rome:Total War, were no more complicated than "flank if you can, cavalry is weak vs pikemen, swordmen slaughter archers so keep them at the back."
That was it.
I don't know if they've greatly expanded on this since then, but I'm inclined not to believe so.
Or you can just click a button and have whatever units stay as far away from the enemy as they can while still attacking. That way you can fully focus on good elements of gameplay. Yay!
Good elements of that game being? Building more units?
Yes, let's spell all the tactical options out for the players so that we can turn the game into the example I described in the last paragraph of my previous post.
Also, how is this even different? All it 'adds' to the game is that you can largely ignore your units as long as they are set to their proper attack mode.
The micro is still there, it's just boring now. You still order the unit to stay out of range, just in a very dry, unexciting and mostly very little demanding fashion.
Why not have a 'raid expansion' mode too, and the unit will go out and attack weakly defended expansions on it's own?
With 'proper' micro, if you are going for a build that employs units in a role that is not naturally suited to them, you'd damn well better know what you're doing and make sure they survive. It's one of the weaknesses of that particular build, and a prime example of risk vs. reward gameplay, one of the cornerstones of gameplay design.
Last edited:
Yeah, that is a big problem, and is exactly why I will never see a Starcraft game the way I want.
Oh well. Popularity doesn't always mean they are right though, but I'm sure millions will argue that Halo is the best FPS evar or WoW is the best game evar. (I say game because MMOs as a whole are **** imo )Well actually I was referencing the battles completely, not the turn based eco and army management part. In battles I was able to route the enemy even against 4 to 1 odds using a variety of strategies like luring the enemy into ambushes between forests, funneling the enemy into artillery with terrain formations or splitting the enemy apart with flanking or hit and run tactics.
Nah, I'd say it turns the game into a thinking mans game where you have to consider your options. There won't just be one "all in one tactics" button. You say it's boring and not demanding, but that would be your choice to do nothing. It would be possible to design that type of gameplay where you constantly have to make decisions and choices and can focus on other strategic elements instead of that micro scenario. You're just thinking of it in Starcraft terms cause SC has no damn strategy in the first place, so of course you'd have nothing else to do.
Well that would have the game making all the strategic decisions for you too. Also those decisions would be questionable at best. With the macro options I'm talking about you know exactly what the unit will do.
Yeah, that is a big problem, and is exactly why I will never see a Starcraft game the way I want.
(...)
Nah, I'd say it turns the game into a thinking mans game where you have to consider your options. There won't just be one "all in one tactics" button. You say it's boring and not demanding, but that would be your choice to do nothing. It would be possible to design that type of gameplay where you constantly have to make decisions and choices and can focus on other strategic elements instead of that micro scenario. You're just thinking of it in Starcraft terms cause SC has no damn strategy in the first place, so of course you'd have nothing else to do.
At this point you're nothing more than a troll.
I just linked you a video discussing high-level strategy, resource distribution and battle plans for a game that's not even in beta yet, based off of one battle report alone. And there's four of those videos already, from just one former pro player and e-sports commentator.
Those videos last roughly one hour per match and most of them don't even touch on the game-specific info like unit stats, good unit combos, strategies for different race matchups, build orders, counters, etc. Just the high-level stuff like resource distribution and mental concepts.
You might notice the guy has about 60 other similar webcasts about SC1 that DO delve into the deeper mechanics of the game.
If after watching that kind of stuff you can still honestly claim "SC has no damn strategy in the first place", you're a troll and my trying to have a reasonable debate with you is over.
Last try, it's really not that complicated of a concept:
Thinking mans game + micromanagement = More demanding thinking mans game. Same strategic level/depth, same choices/risk vs reward, higher pace of the game and more stuff to do at once.
It's as simple as that and if you can not agree even on that basic level I highly doubt you've played SC for more than 10 matches and you still thinking Zergling rushes are the ultimate strategy and probe harass is cheap.
You claim that removing micro from a game altogether frees up time for the player to macro more. Then, in order to not make the game boring, you could add MORE macro decisions. You know, like lots of stuff happening at once, larger scale, and lots of little decisions that you'll have to make that make up the grand strategy when combined.
...Which ends up back at micromanaging. If you increase the scale of a battle, the scale of micro/macro increases as well. Building 3 barracks is considered macro in SC, yet if you increase the scale to a game that typically has 50 barracks per player, 3 barracks can be considered annoying micromanagement as well. After all, shouldn't you be focusing on map control and strategic decisions instead of methodically placing new buildings?
Those three barracks have very little effect on the grand scheme.
--
About popularity: I'm pretty sure we can count a game that has made it to a national sport for nearly a decade as a good game, without bringing up Halo and Wow.
That never really bothered me. The thing that makes that game cool is your ability to speed up how fast you can build things. My only serious complaint with supcom is that their patching process was retarded.
Well ok I also dislike how games are designed to last forever. I could go in and rush the computer, but otherwise it seemed like a battle would take forever. Defenses are extremely powerful, and there's just a ton of high level superweapon type stuff you can make. I'm going to install it today and hope that the patching process works better than last time.