Spring RTS Engine

Starcraft 2 is certainly a strategy game. I think what turns a lot of people off to it is how much low-level management it takes. Less than the original to be sure, but much more than most people can handle. Most of all the lower league games are pretty much decided by who has better general macro skills. You probably don't see games decided by "superior strategy" until master league.

So it is a strategy game, but only about the top 1 or 2 percent of the playerbase can play it.

IMO and why i dont play SC2 much more is cause of the team games...
Big team games are not fun at all...
The only time you can have a lot of fun is if your in the mood for playing competitively like a 1v1 or 2v2...

Casual play in SC2 is shit...
Team games are not fun at all compared to TA/Spring/SupCom....
Everything is super fast...There are no slow artillery gameplay elements and everything has a strong counter...

Machete234 wrote:Id say too that starcraft2 is a real time tactics game with not really believable base building etc which is quite simple.

The fact that you you dont have formations makes it an oldschool game.

Why does it matter if base building is "believable"? All strategy games are abstract to some extent, what matters if these abstractions offer interesting strategic options, not how realistic they are.

And I don't agree Waldo. Even if both players have really bad management, strategy still matters. Good "general macro skills" basically just means you have a better understanding and awareness of how the economy works. Unless you consider strategy be the metagaming part, instead of understanding game mechanics? In which case RPS would be epic strategy game.

By 'general macro skills' I mean that you can make probes constantly, don't get supply blocked, spend your money, spend your mana, etc. As long as you aren't doing completely stupid things, maybe just follow a build order you found on teamliquid website or something, you can win.

If both players have equally terrible macro skills, I suppose strategy comes into play. But the importance of strategy in non-pro games is very deceptive. You are better off grinding your macro to get better then studying strategies. Its much less of "knowing the theory" and more of "being capable of implementing it."

By 'general macro skills' I mean that you can make probes constantly, don't get supply blocked, spend your money, spend your mana, etc.

constantly making new probes is more "microing your economy" to me. As macro I would see deciding when/where to expand or attack.

knorke wrote:

By 'general macro skills' I mean that you can make probes constantly, don't get supply blocked, spend your money, spend your mana, etc.

constantly making new probes is more "microing your economy" to me. As macro I would see deciding when/where to expand or attack.

In general thats what I think too but the terms are used a little differently in starcraftland. Control for a long-term gain (mostly economy/production related stuff) is called macro and control for short-term gain (i.e. spreading units out) is called micro.

(In my experience anyway, I could be completely wrong.)

In all honesty if you do not develop good base managment skills in SC2 you will be unable to macro properly...
You have to know the shortcuts and selection groups and use them all properly and quickly to manage all your expansions fast, otherwise stuff will be idle most of the time and your economy or unit production will be way in complete disorder.

smoth wrote:
are large scale rts games. They do not redefine the genre as it was already established. To say starcraft is not an rts is to say doom is not an fps because auto aim covers part of the shooter portion of the game.

But you wouldnt play a shooter nowadays that has keyboard movement only would you?

Machete234 wrote:

smoth wrote:
are large scale rts games. They do not redefine the genre as it was already established. To say starcraft is not an rts is to say doom is not an fps because auto aim covers part of the shooter portion of the game.

But you wouldnt play a shooter nowadays that has keyboard movement only would you?

Well why not

Johannes wrote:

Machete234 wrote:

smoth wrote:
are large scale rts games. They do not redefine the genre as it was already established. To say starcraft is not an rts is to say doom is not an fps because auto aim covers part of the shooter portion of the game.

But you wouldnt play a shooter nowadays that has keyboard movement only would you?

Well why not

Well, technically TA Spring is a FPS as you can personally take control of your commander (or any other unit) and Dgun the snozberries out of the opposition.

MajorMayhem wrote: Well, technically TA Spring is a FPS as you can personally take control of your commander (or any other unit) and Dgun the snozberries out of the opposition.

TA Spring? where is Swedish Yankspankers?

Karl wrote:

MajorMayhem wrote: Well, technically TA Spring is a FPS as you can personally take control of your commander (or any other unit) and Dgun the snozberries out of the opposition.

TA Spring? where is Swedish Yankspankers?

HOLY CRAP!!!, Did you ever lose me on that one?

lol Spring RTS is NOT an FPS it is an RTS period
it HAS a FPS mode but that is Limited and not the main point of the Engine