Starcrap 2 APM

[Cheesecan]

The rest of the gaming world seems to be rather enjoying SC gameplay judging by its popularity.
Apples and oranges.

[luckywaldo7]

I do play Starcraft and enjoy it. I also happen to still be critical of a lot of its gameplay mechanics.

The 'rest of the gaming world' as you say also seems to be rather enjoying the gameplay of WoW*, Diablo 3, CoD, and Runescape. Doesn't mean we aren't allowed to be critical of some aspects of those games either.

*More than SC2

[Cheesecan]

Being critical doesn't mean you're right, it just means you have an opinion. I dispute that less automation means less strategy. I think it just requires more to master. Linking to a button-mashing video doesn't really prove anything.

[smoth]

Strategy over all game play, speaks to the larger gameplay, are you going to rush x, will you gamble with z tech specialization, do you tech or expand...

Tactics, individual unit behaviors and movements, 'toss shield shuffling(where you move units to be back of a group to manage shields), or scout harrassing expansions.


we used to define the terms that way when playing TT wargames. Starcraft is more a tactical game where as supcom is true strategy.

want more micro, add more tactical play.

[luckywaldo7]

I dispute that less automation means less strategy.

Well then let me say that less automation doesn't mean less strategy. it's not like you can graph the amount of strategy in a game (if such a thing is quantifiable) against the level of automation; they are mostly unrelated. Strategy relies on the design of the game itself, whereas automation is about how you interact with the game.

When you have a relatively low level of automation such as in starcraft, with mechanics added that require frequent repitition, it creates a kind of artificial barrier to the strategic part of the game. For a majority of the playerbase, the strategy part of the game is mostly irrelevant. What is relevant is simply working on the muscle memory to execute those tedious repetitive tasks. Basically, only the really good players get to play it as a strategy game.

Note that I am not complaining about units not microing themselves in combat, or similar such generic gameplay elements. There are very particular mechanics I am most critical of, such as the mentioned larva injections. It would be extremely easy to add a tiny bit of automation; for example, the possibility 'guard' the queen on the hatchery to do automatic larva injections. No strategy was 'added' or 'removed', but a mindless tedious task was removed. Suddenly there is less of a barrier for the average player to start playing the strategy part of the game. Or, for perhaps an even better approach, you consider if such a mechanic was needed at all.

This becomes even more apparent as you take it to the extreme. Consider the numerous simple automations you might take for granted in Starcraft, like attack-move and waypoints. Or perhaps even that your units move their legs and aim their guns on their own. Would you reduce or increase the strategy in the game if you needed to play QWOP to move your units? Not really, compared to how you are really just forcing everyone to get good at QWOP before they can really play again.

Anyway, I feel like the point can never be made hard enough that automation does not need to end at two AI playing the game against each other. The point is to design the game so that players focus on what their strategy is, not how they are going to interface with the game to execute it.

[knorke]

You know, modern air planes are heavily automated, even/especially fighter jets.
I've never been to an airshow where people complained about how automated the planes were.

A modern jet is a tool with the purpose to fulfill its mission. When they fly in war there is no sport or competetion behind it, this reflects in their design where anything that gives an advantage is used.
These planes are flown at airshows simply to showcase the machinery, not in a compepetion of skill.

On the other hand a racecar is a piece of sports equipment.
Hence its design follows the rules of its sport, just like tennis rackets , golf clubs or ice hockey bats are designed within rules too.
The rules are not made "to find the best way to bounce a ball over the net" but to make the game interessting to play/watch.
Starcraft 2's design has the same goal.

(A human isn't capable of flying one unaided anyway)

The planes of airplanes in competetions such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sflEopzLdws are flown unaided, no fly-by-wire.
In air races such as
http://acesflyinghigh.files.wordpress.c ... s-2012.jpg
some planes are modified WW2 planes and inside look like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... d%2901.jpg
If there was an autopilot then people would certainly complain that the planes are too automated now.

Actually, remove the part that shows the car, and show only him working the pedals. And give it 180,000 views and people fanboying over how good he is at hitting pedals.

ok: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdWSyrqEnE4
It is not unusual, such "detail videos" exist of all kind of things, because: ...

try to figure out what makes each video exciting or not.

Nobody watches a whole race/starcraft game in such way but it is interessting to compare techniques: Not just between the players but fans can compare with themself too. It helps to understand what is going on. This makes them interessting.

There is just so much more to what makes a game fun or interesting, than the requirement to do the same repetitive tasks until they are burned into your muscle memory.

Yes, but for some games the "doing things by hand" is part of it, both real life and video games.
Broodwar and Starcraft 2 are such games. Some people like it, some do not.

I think there is one big difference between SC1 and SC2 though:
When SC1 was made, basically all games hard terrible interfaces.
The UI was not made purposedly limited it just was like that.
Now with SC2 technology has advanced and the limitations seem forced and artificial.

[luckywaldo7]

I think there is one big difference between SC1 and SC2 though:
When SC1 was made, basically all games hard terrible interfaces.
The UI was not made purposedly limited it just was like that.
Now with SC2 technology has advanced and the limitations seem forced and artificial.

Agreed. Mostly it grinds my gears when Starcraft is considered the standard of what is to be allowed or how to make an RTS interface. Too easily people will throw out innovative ideas for what is already familiar.

ok: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdWSyrqEnE4
It is not unusual, such "detail videos" exist of all kind of things, because: ...

Fair enough, although then again, racecar driving does not need reptitive, menial mechanics to force its drivers to move their feet faster. Starcraft racecars would require their drivers to press pedals to pump the gas from their tanks to their engines. That part of the car happens to be automated.

Re: Airplaces
Yeah, there are old-school competitions that demonstrate skill in very mechanical planes. However, there are absolutely demonstrations of skill in modern jets, the Blue Angels being an example. (Proof of existance of one does not disprove the existance of the other.) And regardless of the type of plane, the airshow is to showcase the planes and the pilots together.

About 'autopilot', modern jet planes still require a human pilot, but they also require a controller and would fail without it. They are physically unstable in flight, and it would be impossible for a human to keep it stable. Think along the lines of needing a bowling ball balanced on the cockpit without attaching it, except that is how the entire plane acts in flight. The pilot still 'flies' the plane, the controller just ensures he doesn't let the bowling ball fall off, and just about everyone doesn't know the difference (they certainly aren't easier to fly). If you think jets are suddenly uninteresting, it's probably because I said the taboo word, automation.

(Edit; for tone and style, but mostly tone.)

[knorke]

Fair enough, although then again, racecar driving does not need reptitive, menial mechanics to force its drivers to move their feet faster. Starcraft racecars would require their drivers to press pedals to pump the gas from their tanks to their engines.

One could argue that changing gears is a reptitive menial mechanic, having to push three pedals means the cars are already at "starcraft level." You can hardly make it "more primitive" than that without inventing silly things like pumping gas by hand.
Automated is having have a leveler/button and you click it and the gear changes. That exists too in some classes, does not nessecarily make them boring, just removes one aspect that is imo interessting.

Yeah, there are old-school competitions that demonstrate skill in very mechanical planes. However, there are absolutely demonstrations of skill in modern jets, the Blue Angels being an example.

Demonstrations of skill is not the same as competition or sport. What you can see in a circus requires skill too, but it is not a sport. The difference is that in sport there are rules and in the end there is a winner because there was a competition.
Not just "old school", basically all competitions are with very mechanical planes, for example see classes of air racing:
http://www.aafo.com/racing/classes.htm (yes, sometimes there are jets too but not that common i think)

I think you misunderstood on the autopilot part:
Technically it is possible to put a computer into an airplane from the race-around-pylons-thing and have it win every time. After all it is just about following a known trajectory, reacting to factors like wind etc, computers are perfect at that. The technology for that exists, modern passenger jets could pretty much fly on their own (even landing) and drones fly along waypoints without any pilot input at all.
It also works for fast precise stuff, see homing missiles, quadcopter etc.
But then it becomes just a programming contest...

and just about everyone doesn't know the difference (they certainly aren't easier to fly). If you think jets are suddenly uninteresting, it's probably because I said the taboo word, automation.

I think anyone who is slightly interessted in aircraft will know the difference. Just like anyone interessted in cars will see why he is pushing the pedals like that, and any starcraft player will understand why he is clickering so fast. Automation is not uninteressting but it does not nessecarily make the game/whatever more interessting.

[luckywaldo7]

Computers might be perfect at calculations, but that also assumes it was able to build the right model to solve in the first place. Full automation is not here by a long shot. It does work in ideal or cheap situations, which to be fair might be 95% of the passenger flight, or a short drone or missile flight. Then again, if you have failures 5% of the time on passanger flights you are going to have some unhappy customers.

So sure, a fully automated aircraft might be boring, if a greater threat of death bores you.

However, I think the analogies are getting stretched past where they are relevant or useful, so let's get back to the point and talk about the actual game. I keep hammering on larva inject, even though that isn't the only mechanic I am critical of, it's just such a prime example of a bad design. So:

1) Do you play Starcraft 2?

If yes::
2) Do you play zerg?

If yes again:
3) What method do you use for larva injects?
4) How good are your timings?
5) How do you find it to be detrimental or beneficial to your game performance?
6) How do you find it to be detrimental or beneficial to your game enjoyment?

If no to either of the first two questions:
7) How noticable is the mechanic, or how often is it noticable, as someone who doesn't directly experience it?

Automation is not uninteressting but it does not nessecarily make the game/whatever more interessting.

By the way, never in a single one of my posts did I say "automation makes things interesting". My point was that a lack of automation also does not necessarily make things more interesting, just sometimes more tedious.

[Forboding Angel]

I play zerg as my 2nd, and my injects are generally quite on point. My main problem is that in the mid-late game I don't know the race well enough to correctly react to my opponents moves.

Imo zerg is a lot of fun, it just requires a lot of concentration to play well. My zerg ability is probably only silver, although my toss is plat (I did make diamond at one point). I'm getting better at it.

Problem is, I refuse to grind at ladder points the way blizzard wants you to, so I do placements, and that's it, so generally I get placed Gold and end up in plat in fairly short order.

I hate the way the ladder works in sc2 though.

[Johannes]

I think there is one big difference between SC1 and SC2 though:
When SC1 was made, basically all games hard terrible interfaces.
The UI was not made purposedly limited it just was like that.
Now with SC2 technology has advanced and the limitations seem forced and artificial.

That's actually not true. SCBW had the unit selection limit, because they wanted to emphazise using good tactics instead of just massing a huge amount of units and sending those to the enemy killing everything. Of course it didn't really work to that effect in the end, but that was the idea.


Of course the ideas behind the SC2 "macro mechanics" is a lot worse than that - it's not the original idea that larva injects etc. bring something truly interesting to the table, but that you have something almost trivial that makes you switch your view back to your bases in order to make the game "harder".

[varikonniemi]

The marketing department must be good if they have managed to make you believe something like that :D

The ultimate RTS is Dune2, where one has to individually give orders to every unit. Super tactical!

[Johannes]

Nah. It's true. It'd been trivial for Blizzard to change the cap to whatever, if they'd wanted.

[scifi]

Another thing SC1 had horrible pathing.

I was a diamond toss player before they added the grandmaster league.
Two things.
- it takes a lot more than APM to be a good sc2 player.
- if you think starcraft is only about repetitive tasks, then it isnt the game for you.

Now ofc if you have a better apm, your going to be better at the game, its like having faster reflexes, or being able to run faster.

Keep control of the conomy, check worker count, keep upgrades up, check army etc. I for one enjoy these tasks.

Starcraft has a very simple RTS design, and i know some spring games are way more complex and fun, but dont bash SC just because of its focus on APM and micro.

What i would like to see is a game that mixes micro and macro, that gives several ways to open a game and to end it, TA did that and it was awesome that way.

Supcom had endless non inportant tiers of units, each tier would be similar but with weirder stats than the tier before.

[Johannes]

Another thing SC1 had horrible pathing.

It's still preferable to the horrible SC2 pathing, where everything moves in tight blobs. It makes engagements really short and doesn't encourage flanking and other maneuvering as much as SCBW pathing where units kept their formation. Moving up or down a ramp took a moment, etc.

[luckywaldo7]

- if you think starcraft is only about repetitive tasks, then it isnt the game for you.

It's not all about menial tasks. It happens that menial tasks are a barrier to the real game.

Now ofc if you have a better apm, your going to be better at the game, its like having faster reflexes, or being able to run faster.

APM comes from muscle memory which comes from repetition.

Ok, so runners will probably do a lot of running to get better at it, but they also need a variety in their training, like weight-lifting and careful diets. The trainging really encompasses a whole lifestyle.

The starcraft equivalent would be inventing a new kind of build or strategy, crunching some numbers to optimize timings, testing against other players, finding ways to counter it, and then improving against those counters and so on. That is the awesome part of the game. That is not APM.

APM is just repetition. Yes, starcraft isn't only about repetitive menial tasks, but APM is all about repetitive menial tasks, and APM is constantly being defended as what makes starcraft a good game.

[Cheesecan]

Well the simple fact is SC:BW and SC2 multiplayer are heavily designed for esports and competitive play in general. It's not intended as an everymans game like WoW or D3. This is just how their franchise line-up is. This is what their fans want, what draws the crowds and made it super successful.

Now the whole point of the ladder system is to allow everyone to play at their own level. Where is the barrier to entry? If you are a total RTS noob, you can play campaign->unranked->practice->bronze. If that is too hard, you can play with your friends in melee.

I think your whole argument is overdone with all these metaphores and false assertions. Look where you are, a RTS engine forum. If something doesn't exist, you can go make it just the way you want it.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Really now...This is the doom of most RTS games.
Clickfests...
Starcraft 2, Spring, Supcom, Planetary annihilation..
If you don't want a clickfest play some awesome turn based strategy.
Also, you do not have to have huge APM to play SC2 and have fun.
All you have to do is try not to climb the ladder right...
The mathcmaking should adjust your apponents so that you win and lsoe about 50% of the time.
I have not played SC2 lately but that is how it should be, especially with such a big community....
You just play at the level you want to and it will match people of the same level to play against you.

[luckywaldo7]

Well the simple fact is SC:BW and SC2 multiplayer are heavily designed for esports and competitive play in general. It's not intended as an everymans game like WoW or D3. This is just how their franchise line-up is. This is what their fans want, what draws the crowds and made it super successful.

Now the whole point of the ladder system is to allow everyone to play at their own level. Where is the barrier to entry? If you are a total RTS noob, you can play campaign->unranked->practice->bronze. If that is too hard, you can play with your friends in melee.

I think your whole argument is overdone with all these metaphores and false assertions. Look where you are, a RTS engine forum. If something doesn't exist, you can go make it just the way you want it.

I do love metaphors.

In particular I am trying to work the discussion in a way that people don't start with the assumption that something is good because it is starcraft. The assumption that because every aspect was 'heavily designed for esports and competitive play in general' that it's perfect. LoL has quite thoroughly beaten starcraft in the esports scene without those 'heavily designed' mechanics.

But sure, it still has its fanbase, one of the largest after LoL. But I don't think that alone justifies it for being the holy grail of how an RTS, competitive or not, needs to be designed.

My hope for an excellent game mostly rests in Planetary Annihilation. There is a dev team that does a great job of listening to player ideas and feedback, of trying new ideas and innovating, and adapting to what happens. The ability to stay smart and flexable is more important than 'heavily design[ing]' for a sometimes ambiguous goal.

[Cheesecan]

My hope for an excellent game mostly rests in Planetary Annihilation.

The day is saved. Now we can all breathe out. RTS evolution has finally ended and the first luckywaldo7 approved title is on its way. Stay strapped to those teasers in the meantime. Whatever you do, don't play SC. Blizzard doesn't care, not like redface does!