Serosly, we should give this a try! Just like we maybe dint like the units attacking radar blips. Now we love it, AND it dosent effect gameplay since inacurette.
A number of people still don't like this option. And it
does affect gameplay, because it means anyone with radar coverage has an immediate bonus, giving power to defenders and away from attackers. It also makes aircraft significantly weaker.
--------
Dakar, your suggestion is a good one, related to the specific topic. But the discussion which is developing is more general in nature and regarding the direction of Spring as a whole. Perhaps a moderator should split the thread into a new topic: "Spring: The divide between micromanagement and automated control"?
----------
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but to the majority of the people taking part in this discussion:
Please clean up your writing. While you can get away with sounding like an 11 year old in simple posts and quick suggestions, this an in-depth (and important) discussion, and it requires people to be entirely understandible. I will pull a few examples at random, with no personal offense intended:
dude im here for a game of spring ALWAYS up 4 one. we could just use IPs and older versions!
Not only is this poorly written, it has no context or relation to the topic.
3D OTA's fine by me!!! i like ghosted buildings but i'd dislike (players) giving their units missions (although it would be usefull for AI) Ghosted buildings ENCOURAGE tactics (microing force firing at the shapes :D)
My favourite games have both TACTICS and STRATEGY (MICRO and MACRO) TACTICS are how you tell a semiprofrom a pro, if 0 micro was involved *shudder* build orders would win matches. UGH i like both DO NOT TRY TO DO THIS AS ITS A WASTE OF YOUR TIME! besides it would take frecking ages and i'd prefer this game/client to be improved and a AI to be created!
Unreadable. Usually if I see something like this, I'll skip over it, irrelevant of any opinion that is worth hearing.
However... At teh mo, Id have to click each and every unit i wanted somthing to attack one at a time to make them do it... So if say I wanted to kill all teh radar towers in sight id have to manyly use shift to make my units move on to the next one. Thsi would take up valuble time thatI could be useing to tell a different unit/groupe to attack somthing else.
While this is on the way to becoming readible, it is just so fraught with errors that it is difficult to follow the line of argument.
btw... agorm makes the most sense.
... an special attack marker... assigned to an special unit type.. sound like plan tracing... nice. ( i think it was suggested b4 ).
also, you can select all units of the same type in the screen.. ans such things... selection editor is VERY powerfull... i have a key(comb) to select 30% of the current selection... (another for 60%, another for air transport.. ).
What is it that you are trying to say here? I mean, the post doesn't have too many spelling errors, but it just has no logical flow. Using "..." does not mean that everyone has followed on from your arguments, only that you have. It's akin to "yada yada yada".
The posts I pointed out are not the only culprits, they are just a random selection from the topic review window.
Please people, this is a fundamental issue regarding Spring's development. If you want to take part in this discussion, take a leaf from 10053r's book, and write a well constructed argument.
Not only is it easier for people to follow what you say, but your opinions are taken much more seriously.
-------------
Now to answer some of the points raised:
Originally posted by 10053er
I should just be able to say kill this object, and then have the default behaviour be that the units will seek out similar objects over non-similar ones for their next targets. How does that destroy gameplay?
As munch raised, this has the potential of going down the Microsoft word path of "yes, that occasionally does what I want, but not always. If I want to do something different, I can't." But it also takes the step of "if I don't use this, I am at a disadvantage".
For that matter, how have ghosted buildings destroyed gameplay? They haven't, and I haven't heard you yelling to get them yanked back out again since their introduction.
I think that the ghosted buildings are borderline. While I can see the logic in their inclusion, I also think there is something as "too much information". If you automatically remember where everything is, then the game becomes much more easy. Reducing the ease of a game is also a microsoft path; it dictates to the lowest common denominator, which sells more copies, but dilutes the game and "dumbs it down". Whether or not the ghosted buildings do this is arguable, and I haven't made up my mind yet. Autotargetted radar blips certainly do this, though.
Let's step back a bit... What makes TA different from other games? It has a vision. If you read the supreme commander article, you can see that Chris Taylor shares this vision. The vision is this.
Epic gameplay. Huge armies crashing wave upon wave of troops into each other. Strategic, not tactical decision making, which means that you only drill down to the most basic elements of the battle when it is strategically valuable to the entire operation theater. In most cases, you say things like, "make this kind of unit. Send them here. Use this production strategy. Scout there. Combine this unit and this unit in a novel fasion."
This is your interpretation of his vision. While epic battles are certainly an element of OTA, I would say that the greatest element of TA is gameplay
control. In TA, I am able to control my units to different degrees. I am able to control a huge base (with helpers to
make it easier for me,
but not remove the control), as well as manage a defense and far flung assaults. Within those assaults, I am able to micromanage my units to get that extra ounce of power out of them. It is that micromanagement that divides the good players from the bad players.
For example, sure, I am allowed to drag out a row of MT's within a second. But did you realise that when a missile tower dies, its death explosion harms the tower's next to it? It's therefore more efficient to allow a small gap between missile towers to prevent this. This slight gap also allows you to cover more territory quicker, and allow spaces for your units to advance through.
This isn't an issue in Spring, because I am allowed to place my towers individually. But it is an example of how a proposed "aid" could well be just as much of an inhibitor as a helper.
Some people like clicking like weasels on crack. We suggest they play starcraft, or even better, warcraft 2.
I disagree with this entirely, and find it rather offensive that you align proponents of micromanagement with such tripe as starcraft or Warcraft (
). The difference between those games and TA is that in Warcraft and SC, there isn't any thought behind the clicking. It isn't about where you click, its about how fast you click. The gameplay is so weak that people have worked out
what you need to do. Decision is irrelevant, its about how quickly you can cast a spell, etc. etc.
In TA, micromanagement is synonymous with tactics.
If I click faster, it isn't going to get me any special rewards. It is if I click
smarter that is what gets me the greater results. If I am attacking, and I wish to overwhelm my enemy, I can throw units into the fray, and hope that they will be victorious based on weight of numbers, and pre-programmed engagement rules (this seems to be what you are advocating). Or I can micromanageme my units, and make sure that my missile units sit at the edge of their range so as to avoid taking damage. I can make sure that my light units (flashes/gators etc) instead of charging as a clump and presenting a whole body, will rather split up in the midst of combat and present multiple targets at multiple vectors for the defense to fire at.
If I am on a specific mission, I will keep an eye out for the object of my mission, and order my units accordingly.
This is tactics, and it is represented in TA by micromanagement. What you suggests removes the players hand in the tactics of the game. Which leads me to my next point:
For those of us who share this grand vision, however, I don't want to be bothered with details.
What you are advocating leads more and more towards games like civilisation. Do you remember the combat in that? It was very stripped back strategy, but the grand overview was there. Sure, Spring would have more explosions, but fundamentally, there would be little difference. You would select a mass of units, and tell them to attack. The results of those attacks would be based on preprogrammed rules which you set out before the engagement, and are
independant of your control.
If units do everything for you (the "details"), you are no longer playing a game, you're watching a movie.
And just for the record, MiniSpring institutes changes far greater than epic map creation.
).
