there is more to spring then BA and SPEEDMETAL
Moderator: Moderators
)... if not they can take like forever...
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
alot of people think that if they are smart (or think they are) theywill be really good at RTS, which is no more true than being smart will make you good at FPS.
these players generally play very defensively so they get a smug feeling of superiority over their opponent when their specifically placed buildings conquer over the masses of "spam" their stupid opponent sent at them.
these players almost exclusively play against AI opponents. AI opponents wont do anything lame or un-fun (outsmart them).
These players have no concept of micro, efficiency, resource managment because they refuse to believe that RTS needs more than their raw unbridled genius to play.
So what do these players do when there is no option for AI?
They play maps that dont need Micro, Efficiency or resource managment.
If you changed how the map worked. They wouldnt play it.
However, now in an enviroment where they are still forced to contend with other people who dont think like dumb AI, they do learn some fundamental RTS skills.
if they dont quit playing, they'll feel more confident and play some more varied maps, and maybe in time become a regular player.
you dont learn shit about playign a mod with speedmetal, but it is an easy path to learning how RTS fundamentally works when playing against real people.
Since SSB came out there has been an influx of great maps for people to have an easy introduction to playing on and the amount of people who only play/understand speedmetal is very low.
in short, the people who play speedmetal arent ready to care about whatever balance you put in your mod just yet.
these players generally play very defensively so they get a smug feeling of superiority over their opponent when their specifically placed buildings conquer over the masses of "spam" their stupid opponent sent at them.
these players almost exclusively play against AI opponents. AI opponents wont do anything lame or un-fun (outsmart them).
These players have no concept of micro, efficiency, resource managment because they refuse to believe that RTS needs more than their raw unbridled genius to play.
So what do these players do when there is no option for AI?
They play maps that dont need Micro, Efficiency or resource managment.
If you changed how the map worked. They wouldnt play it.
However, now in an enviroment where they are still forced to contend with other people who dont think like dumb AI, they do learn some fundamental RTS skills.
if they dont quit playing, they'll feel more confident and play some more varied maps, and maybe in time become a regular player.
you dont learn shit about playign a mod with speedmetal, but it is an easy path to learning how RTS fundamentally works when playing against real people.
Since SSB came out there has been an influx of great maps for people to have an easy introduction to playing on and the amount of people who only play/understand speedmetal is very low.
in short, the people who play speedmetal arent ready to care about whatever balance you put in your mod just yet.
Strategic play is learned as is tactical play. Intellligence does not make a better player, just means you might learn faster if you are even wired for this sort of thing. I never like the speedmetal players = dumb sentimentality. The thing is I just do not like speed metal because it changes the unit speed. Otherwise, I like it because I usee air a lot.Ishach wrote:a lot(fixed, two words) of people think that if they are smart (or think they are) theywill be really good at RTS, which is no more true than being smart will make you good at FPS.
What isach is saying about ssb is true, it is a better map for testing. I use it to test gundam frequently. So much so I am sick of seeing it. SSB has a good balance of sea and land. It also has most of the metal you will need in your base and not all spread out on the map. Meaning begining players do not need to be as agressive with expansion.
I just want to remind people that Speedmetal is bad because it increases unit speeds which is BAD.
LOL, that's not true at all. A smarter player is much more able to adapt to a given game situation (that they may never have seen before). A smarter player will also be better at anticipating what their enemy is thinking, and staying one step ahead. The smarter player will be more likely to win on a map that he has never seen before.smoth wrote:Intellligence does not make a better player, just means you might learn faster
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
smarter player if their skill is equal. skill at the mod, and intelligence are two diffrent factors.
skill = ability to preform tactics, micro, attack, follow build orders, react quickly. basicly stuff you learn over time
intelligence = phycological stuff, thinking up new tactics, trying unusual ploys, finding the most efficent units, thinking how to use a map and how fast you get skill.
skill = ability to preform tactics, micro, attack, follow build orders, react quickly. basicly stuff you learn over time
intelligence = phycological stuff, thinking up new tactics, trying unusual ploys, finding the most efficent units, thinking how to use a map and how fast you get skill.
-
Lindir The Green
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 04 May 2005, 15:09
Dude seriously people.. The reason a more "intelligent" person does not make a better RT"S" player is because largely RT"S" games have no strategy in them, they are all tactics and micro and this is not that different from the twitch gaming of a FPS game
Tactics: the branch of military science dealing with detailed maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy
Strategy: the branch of military science dealing with military command and the planning and conduct of a war
now some people fail to see the difference between those, and the difference between those is why I personally have a beef with supcom..
basically, most RT"S" games are not large scale enough to accurately simulate actual strategic game play, you generally have to go to turn based games for this because that is the only way you can get the large scale neccesary to allow strategy..
Ideally if you are the "strategic" commander in a area, you would give orders to your subordinates in regards to the overall strategy, and they would attempt to execute those orders using tactics.. however if such a system were implemented in a RT"S" many people might complain of H4x..
Essentially If you want to play a spring game with strategy, your gonna need at minimum 4 people on one side comm sharing, 1 person to direct overall strategy, 1 person to manage economy, and 2 people to execute tactics based on the strategic directives.. unfortunately to do such a thing youd need much larger scale, because to play such a game youd need to be playing on the area of roughly 2x 20x20 maps, or more..
Other thing to note is the scale between resources, production and ground forces is usually way off scale, the number of people, and machines that can be in a battle and be destroyed in a battle are not something replaced in a few minutes something most RT"S" games do not accurately simulate
One way this could be allievated is if you had a fixed unit limit, and by fixed unit limit, I mean you can build 200 units, and then your done, ie if you get to 200 and then loose 20, you cant build 20 more to replace them, your stuck with your 200... 180 live 20 dead..
Tactics: the branch of military science dealing with detailed maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy
Strategy: the branch of military science dealing with military command and the planning and conduct of a war
now some people fail to see the difference between those, and the difference between those is why I personally have a beef with supcom..
basically, most RT"S" games are not large scale enough to accurately simulate actual strategic game play, you generally have to go to turn based games for this because that is the only way you can get the large scale neccesary to allow strategy..
Ideally if you are the "strategic" commander in a area, you would give orders to your subordinates in regards to the overall strategy, and they would attempt to execute those orders using tactics.. however if such a system were implemented in a RT"S" many people might complain of H4x..
Essentially If you want to play a spring game with strategy, your gonna need at minimum 4 people on one side comm sharing, 1 person to direct overall strategy, 1 person to manage economy, and 2 people to execute tactics based on the strategic directives.. unfortunately to do such a thing youd need much larger scale, because to play such a game youd need to be playing on the area of roughly 2x 20x20 maps, or more..
Other thing to note is the scale between resources, production and ground forces is usually way off scale, the number of people, and machines that can be in a battle and be destroyed in a battle are not something replaced in a few minutes something most RT"S" games do not accurately simulate
One way this could be allievated is if you had a fixed unit limit, and by fixed unit limit, I mean you can build 200 units, and then your done, ie if you get to 200 and then loose 20, you cant build 20 more to replace them, your stuck with your 200... 180 live 20 dead..
pffff ...
play 1v1 is only a practice : the players make always the same developpement and the same battles ... too stupid ...
Play more than 5v5 is luck because there is always a team with more good players than in the other ...
Play 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4 is strategic : decide a group strategy and make it ... it's organisation to be able to help your friends where they need ... and to attack together like 1 unique army ...
play 1v1 is only a practice : the players make always the same developpement and the same battles ... too stupid ...
Play more than 5v5 is luck because there is always a team with more good players than in the other ...
Play 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4 is strategic : decide a group strategy and make it ... it's organisation to be able to help your friends where they need ... and to attack together like 1 unique army ...
To find something remotely resembling strategy in the sense of organising a huge REAL LIFE army at the higest level, IE the REAL LIFE generals job (origin of the word is from greek word for general), you would have to get an actual war simulator/wargame, the thing (again real life) military commanders practice with, even better do it with real people instead of stupid computers. And these things are not made to be fun, unlike the games we play for entertainment. Turn based games might come closer then real time ones, but they are still made to be fun instead of realistic.
People jacking off so much these days about their holy "true strategy" grail game... Im gonna start saying planning instead of strategy, the word feels abused. Almost like a buzz word, yuck.
People jacking off so much these days about their holy "true strategy" grail game... Im gonna start saying planning instead of strategy, the word feels abused. Almost like a buzz word, yuck.
Maybe EE is like that (I don't know), but you'll find that the best BA players are all smart folks, able to come up with a strategy on the fly to situations they had never seen before. But it seems like everyone who isn't good at the game says its all about clicking.Fanger wrote:Dude seriously people.. The reason a more "intelligent" person does not make a better RT"S" player is because largely RT"S" games have no strategy in them, they are all tactics and micro and this is not that different from the twitch gaming of a FPS game
Nice jab followed by pretentious yawn, Matt. Honestly, noone who posts in this thread, including me,will look unbiased. However, I'm going to try to delineate things.
I've rather found that all the mods require slightly different methods of play, hence why I excel at none of them as I play all of them. I'll just point out a few front-runners here...
E&E: Micromanagement, with the exception of the Flamer units, is unnecessary. You manage groups, and overhead strategy does take precedence. The economy is expansion based, and individual units are generally insignificant. Strategic, Expansionist.
Gundam: Gundam mixes extremely powerful yet vulnerable individual units which require micromanagement with specialized groups that require tactical use. Success is decided by the efficent use of both elements together, requiring a dual mentality of play. The economy is simplified and not expansion based, mainly to encourage logical bases which remain vulnerable despite any attempt to porc due to the unit balancing. Tactical (Micromanagement), Reserved.
SWS: Star Wars is fairly tactical and wave-based. You have a wide selection of individually insignificant units, but mixed groups are superior. The economy is generalized, allowing for expansion and the construction of defended bases in equal parts. Tactical, Mixed.
BA: Balanced Annihilation is a group intensive mod which does not favour mixed groups very much. Think about it... Flash spam, Insitigator spam, Skimmer spam, Hawk spam, Brawler spam... you can often win through concentration of investment. The economy is generalized, allowing for the construction of defended bases and expansion on the other hand, however, the power and prevalence of defensive structures makes a defensive game with some groups of units to support quite simple. Limited Tactical, Mixed Favouring Reserved.
XTA: This mod has many of the same failings of Balanced Annihilation, but the players are more pretenious about it. See Macintosh vs. Dell laptop fires. Play is slower, which encourages some additional micromanagement as you sometimes only have one unit to manage. The economy is generalized, allowing for the construction of defended bases and expansion on the other hand, however, the power and prevalence of defensive structures makes a defensive game with some groups of units to support quite simple. Limited Tactical, Mixed Favouring Reserved.
FF: Final Frontier is a testament to looking at economic issues the wrong way. You need an immense economy to support any level of unit production, and many units are irrelevant to play among players who do metagame calculations and break down the efficency. Rock/Paper/Scissors balance coupled with economic inconsistency encourages careful use of rather small and expensive groups. The economy encourages porcing on one hand, but the speed of play would be far too slow for even the most hardcore to tolerate in such a case. Limited Tactical, Reserved.
1944: A budding mod, this is one of my favourites. It requires tactical management of groups in the greater scheme, coupled with an expansion economy and the feeling of universal vulnerability. Individual units are specialized, but you need to keep your mind focused on the greater campaign. Strategic, Expansionist.
Just to give you some background, most of my play experience is concentrated in Balanced Annihilation. Gundam and Expand & Exterminate come next in the hierarchy, followed by XTA, Final Frontier, 1944 and Star Wars in that order. Virtually all other mods come after in terms of play frequency.
I've rather found that all the mods require slightly different methods of play, hence why I excel at none of them as I play all of them. I'll just point out a few front-runners here...
E&E: Micromanagement, with the exception of the Flamer units, is unnecessary. You manage groups, and overhead strategy does take precedence. The economy is expansion based, and individual units are generally insignificant. Strategic, Expansionist.
Gundam: Gundam mixes extremely powerful yet vulnerable individual units which require micromanagement with specialized groups that require tactical use. Success is decided by the efficent use of both elements together, requiring a dual mentality of play. The economy is simplified and not expansion based, mainly to encourage logical bases which remain vulnerable despite any attempt to porc due to the unit balancing. Tactical (Micromanagement), Reserved.
SWS: Star Wars is fairly tactical and wave-based. You have a wide selection of individually insignificant units, but mixed groups are superior. The economy is generalized, allowing for expansion and the construction of defended bases in equal parts. Tactical, Mixed.
BA: Balanced Annihilation is a group intensive mod which does not favour mixed groups very much. Think about it... Flash spam, Insitigator spam, Skimmer spam, Hawk spam, Brawler spam... you can often win through concentration of investment. The economy is generalized, allowing for the construction of defended bases and expansion on the other hand, however, the power and prevalence of defensive structures makes a defensive game with some groups of units to support quite simple. Limited Tactical, Mixed Favouring Reserved.
XTA: This mod has many of the same failings of Balanced Annihilation, but the players are more pretenious about it. See Macintosh vs. Dell laptop fires. Play is slower, which encourages some additional micromanagement as you sometimes only have one unit to manage. The economy is generalized, allowing for the construction of defended bases and expansion on the other hand, however, the power and prevalence of defensive structures makes a defensive game with some groups of units to support quite simple. Limited Tactical, Mixed Favouring Reserved.
FF: Final Frontier is a testament to looking at economic issues the wrong way. You need an immense economy to support any level of unit production, and many units are irrelevant to play among players who do metagame calculations and break down the efficency. Rock/Paper/Scissors balance coupled with economic inconsistency encourages careful use of rather small and expensive groups. The economy encourages porcing on one hand, but the speed of play would be far too slow for even the most hardcore to tolerate in such a case. Limited Tactical, Reserved.
1944: A budding mod, this is one of my favourites. It requires tactical management of groups in the greater scheme, coupled with an expansion economy and the feeling of universal vulnerability. Individual units are specialized, but you need to keep your mind focused on the greater campaign. Strategic, Expansionist.
Just to give you some background, most of my play experience is concentrated in Balanced Annihilation. Gundam and Expand & Exterminate come next in the hierarchy, followed by XTA, Final Frontier, 1944 and Star Wars in that order. Virtually all other mods come after in terms of play frequency.