I agree with you, Vehementi. Personally I play this game as much as I can (and I don't give up as soon as there is something implemented I don't like), and in-game I have my hands so full that I forget to do some stuff, such as scouting properly. Having to think of making the planes factory and the peepers and sending them to scout is way enough for me, without having to follow them around AND try to write on the map or click the target quickly.
I'd like to be able to focus on building my base and directing my main attack force(s). The other stuff such as scouting I want to manage with clicks on the minimap.
Minimap idea
Moderator: Moderators
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Gabba, isn't it then fair that you lose to a player who is able to operate at the same degree you are in terms of base management and combat, but is also proficient at scouting and managing other sections of the game? Surely he is a better player, and deserves to win?
I feel that this suggestion "dumbs down" the game. Dumbing down may make the game initially more accessible, but in the long run removes the complexity that keeps people coming back.
I would also argue that micromanagement should only be automated when it is a chore that requires no skill to operate succesfully; scouting is something which requires skill and finesse to work out and undertake quickly, as does correct defense against a scouter. If you can kill a peeper as soon as it appears over your base, your enemy probably wouldn't have seen anything. But now he has your base nicely painted out infront of him.
I feel that this suggestion "dumbs down" the game. Dumbing down may make the game initially more accessible, but in the long run removes the complexity that keeps people coming back.
I would also argue that micromanagement should only be automated when it is a chore that requires no skill to operate succesfully; scouting is something which requires skill and finesse to work out and undertake quickly, as does correct defense against a scouter. If you can kill a peeper as soon as it appears over your base, your enemy probably wouldn't have seen anything. But now he has your base nicely painted out infront of him.
As I said in my earlier, post, no. Because it's just UI micromanagement. Again, I could make it so you have to use a voice command to d-gun instead of merely hitting the d hotkey. Then, a player more able to d-gun will be the player more able to manage his base and combat, but additionally be proficient at using awkward voice commands.Warlord Zsinj wrote:Gabba, isn't it then fair that you lose to a player who is able to operate at the same degree you are in terms of base management and combat, but is also proficient at scouting and managing other sections of the game? Surely he is a better player, and deserves to win?
It dumbs down the game just as hotkey groups dumb down the game. I disagree with your assessment that it keeps players from coming back.I feel that this suggestion "dumbs down" the game. Dumbing down may make the game initially more accessible, but in the long run removes the complexity that keeps people coming back.
This is meaningless, since any tedius action that must be multitasked in with useful actions will require skill to operate successfully. See the earlier examples of hotkey groups, retarded mouse gestures, etc. A person proficient at pressing the scout plane hotkey, right clicking on the minimap, and pressing the T key will be able to see everything that someone who merely presses the scout plane hotkey and right clicks on the minimap will see, except the former will have the advantage of knowing troop positions, etc. With the ghosting addition, since the buildings stay, scouting is indeed *more* powerful (while simultaneously rewarding people who *do* observe the scout as he enters the base), which means that players have to go to greater lengths (and thus use more skill) to protect their base from scouting - they have to have vulnerable anti-air units and buildings on the outskirts of their base to shoot down any incoming scouts, for example.I would also argue that micromanagement should only be automated when it is a chore that requires no skill to operate succesfully; scouting is something which requires skill and finesse to work out and undertake quickly, as does correct defense against a scouter. If you can kill a peeper as soon as it appears over your base, your enemy probably wouldn't have seen anything. But now he has your base nicely painted out infront of him.
By mentioning starcraft...[/quote]Do not mention SC much around here.. we may get another 5 pages of flames... well not really, we are more civilized latelly... kynda..SwiftSpear wrote: By mentioning StrarCraft or being average.
And, btw, i play spring in a regular basis. So ive have had the chance to "taste" the ghosted buildings... as everybody since that release... i like them, and have seen NO single person to whine about it.. no one! (im talking in this forums or in the lobby chat), since that was implemented.
So why are we arguing about it again?.. all i can see is one... old timer taer, that has his heart put against this and other things...
Storm, the thing is, go play for a bit, and show some evidence of your "evilish" influence of ghosts over gameplay, a replay could be very handy.
back on this topic, yeps, unit bleeding may be too much info.
how about a small popup with the spotted unit count?
I still have one bone to pick with you Storm. See just cuse something is added that you dont agree with dosent mean you should just pick up and leave! NEVER DO THAT! The only thing to do is to argue even louder!
Or atleast that's my opinion.
Now, as i have already said, gosted buildings simply remove spotters, and you know what... spotters are COOL!
I mean why bring radar spotters when you can fly a plane over the enemy base and KNOW where EVERYTHING is. Realistic? YES! But it also removes a part of the gameplay and that can only be good if we all hate that perticular "play". Like...that annoying as all hell upkeep in WCIII.... or the compleat lack of real brainpower needed to play SC. I found that you really just need a pattern that you do, and if you can do it faster then the enemy...YOU WIN!
Or atleast that's my opinion.
Now, as i have already said, gosted buildings simply remove spotters, and you know what... spotters are COOL!
I mean why bring radar spotters when you can fly a plane over the enemy base and KNOW where EVERYTHING is. Realistic? YES! But it also removes a part of the gameplay and that can only be good if we all hate that perticular "play". Like...that annoying as all hell upkeep in WCIII.... or the compleat lack of real brainpower needed to play SC. I found that you really just need a pattern that you do, and if you can do it faster then the enemy...YOU WIN!
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
We're arguing because someone saw a suggestion to polish up the rough ghosting system that we have right now as an oppertunity to rally against the ghosting system in total.mongus wrote:Do not mention SC much around here.. we may get another 5 pages of flames... well not really, we are more civilized latelly... kynda..SwiftSpear wrote:By mentioning starcraft...
And, btw, i play spring in a regular basis. So ive have had the chance to "taste" the ghosted buildings... as everybody since that release... i like them, and have seen NO single person to whine about it.. no one! (im talking in this forums or in the lobby chat), since that was implemented.
So why are we arguing about it again?.. all i can see is one... old timer taer, that has his heart put against this and other things...
Storm, the thing is, go play for a bit, and show some evidence of your "evilish" influence of ghosts over gameplay, a replay could be very handy.
back on this topic, yeps, unit bleeding may be too much info.
how about a small popup with the spotted unit count?
Oh, and starcraft is an awesome game, it just isn't in any way TA and TA shouldn't in any way aim at being what starcraft was. Certain things from starcraft work in the TA setting, but trying to emulate the SC game or expericance is just really not a good idea for TA mod teams. Starcraft did everything it did too well to be copied effectively by small teams, and the features that starcraft had that made it so fun and popular really aren't even imitateable by either the TA engine or the spring engine.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
The problem with StarCraft is that it is a highly succesful arcade game; but it is doing so under the guise of a wargame. Players think they are being strategic in Starcraft, when really they are being about as strategic as button mashing in Tekken or whatnot. If people enjoy it, I have no right to take that away from them. But when they claim that StarCraft is a better strategy game then TA, or even remotely close to TA, it annoys me.
'nuff said.Warlord Zsinj wrote:The problem with StarCraft is that it is a highly succesful arcade game; but it is doing so under the guise of a wargame. Players think they are being strategic in Starcraft, when really they are being about as strategic as button mashing in Tekken or whatnot. If people enjoy it, I have no right to take that away from them. But when they claim that StarCraft is a better strategy game then TA, or even remotely close to TA, it annoys me.
Last edited by FizWizz on 28 Oct 2005, 18:20, edited 1 time in total.
Coo kie
for
warlo rd
I'll see what I can do about ghosted buildings on the minimap. SJ hasnt uploaded the changed code to the CVS, but it's on fileuniverse. And I'm gonna have to release a modified Spring binary (cvs code + modifications) as NTAI v0.25 has been compiled with interfaces that dont exist in the current release.
As for starcraft, warlord sums it up in that statement.
SY's I beg of you add starcraft to the censored words list on the forum admin!!! And maybe the phrase "XTA balance thread".... in new topic titles
for
warlo rd
I'll see what I can do about ghosted buildings on the minimap. SJ hasnt uploaded the changed code to the CVS, but it's on fileuniverse. And I'm gonna have to release a modified Spring binary (cvs code + modifications) as NTAI v0.25 has been compiled with interfaces that dont exist in the current release.
As for starcraft, warlord sums it up in that statement.
SY's I beg of you add starcraft to the censored words list on the forum admin!!! And maybe the phrase "XTA balance thread".... in new topic titles
I don't want to lose!Warlord Zsinj wrote:
Gabba, isn't it then fair that you lose to a player who is able to operate at the same degree you are in terms of base management and combat, but is also proficient at scouting and managing other sections of the game? Surely he is a better player, and deserves to win?
No, but seriously, I admire players who can do more things that me at a time. However, I think that the basic tasks of the game (scouting, building, manoeuvering armies, communicating with fellow players, etc.) should be made as easy as possible. This way, victory is more determined by what choices you make -- where to scout, how much resources/factories you dedicate to scouts and how you use the info you get from scouting -- rather than whether you can master the hard UI and manage to scout at all. You see, I like Strategy to win in a R.T.Strategy game.Seriously, I think we have to try it out in-game and see if it makes intelligence too easy. Ghosted buildings on the main map is fine for everybody who actually play the game, so that's a closed topic; but we have to see the actual effect on gameplay (and fun) of them bleeding on the minimap.Vehementi wrote:On-topic, I agree fully with SwiftSpear in that if we have ghosted buildings in the first place, having mini-map bleeding is certainly the correct action. They should either both be in, or both be out.
My guess at how it'll work out: "Bleeding ghosted buildings" (
sounds spooky) will allow you to dispatch scouts while doing something else, and see on the minimap where there are enemy buildings. Nice. But for any efficient attack you'll still need to go to the main map and see the ghosted buildings to know where are the fusion plants, etc. On the other hand, to defend your base you'll now need to protect better against scouts, since they'll be more useful to your enemies. So that means you'll need advanced AA outposts, and fighter patrols, to intercept them. And if it ends up being too hard to stop them, adding long range AA or cloaked LOS outposts (Dragon's eye in Uberhack) to the game may be the solution. All in all, I think it will be a welcome tweak to the gameplay.Perfectly said.Gabba wrote: I think that the basic tasks of the game (scouting, building, manoeuvering armies, communicating with fellow players, etc.) should be made as easy as possible. This way, victory is more determined by what choices you make -- where to scout, how much resources/factories you dedicate to scouts and how you use the info you get from scouting -- rather than whether you can master the hard UI and manage to scout at all. You see, I like Strategy to win in a R.T.Strategy game.
I'm a bit reluctant to go into this discussion, but here we go.
There are, of course, arguments that can be made for both sides, personally I will say that I prefer it if there wouldn't be any ghosted buildings or any ghosted radar dots of them. I however do belive that if there are ghosted buildings, then perhaps having ghosted radar dots aren't such a big deal, even though its a step further in a direction which I don't prefer.
One thing those who argue for ghosted building seems to forget, though, is that scouting in TA is actually easy and quick, at least with aircrafts. The problem was that they couldn't hover around an area so you could memorize the amount or position of all the enemies defences, plants and resource buildings, you could only get a general picture, or send in more planes and try to remember a specific area. The writing feature changed this a bit, but you still only had a general idea of the base, and only a thing or two that you might have had time to mark out better, and even then it wasn't 100% exact.
Now, ghosted building however change this completly, suddenly you get a perfect view of the enemy base with a few cheap peepers. You don't only have a general idea, no, you know exactly where he had that fusion and that kbot lab and that advanced radar etc, etc. This is, a bit exaggerated of course, like using perma los for all buildings. Granted, your enemy could have a secret outpost that you haven't noticed or something, but I did say exaggerated. The base can change of course, especially if you are playing in a larger FFA, but in a 1vs1 especially the chances that it will change unless you are doing something are pretty small. Sure, he might have reclaimed a plant to get some metal for something else, but the changes will be small and utlimately insignificant.
What does this mean, though? Well, sure, you can plan your attacks much better, but personally I don't think it adds anything that good to the strategy part as such. It basically mean information is cheap, what is so positive about that? Information has always been a valuable commodity in RTS games, because if you know what your enemy is up to you can get the upper hand. So with the current system you can cheaply, almost without a cost, get a very valuable resource. Sure, you still have to follow your scout if you want to see what he's building and how many units you are, but you still get a lot of information even if you don't.
In TA however, you had to pay for that information, not in metal or energy, but in time, the most valuable resource of them all in most RTS games to date (perhaps not all, but it is true in TA at least, which is the important part). So, if you analyze things a bit, you will realise that what could seem like some micromanagement issue only, actually play a much larger role in a strategical sense, even though I don't know if all who argue against it even realises this.
So, a short conclusion; Ghosted building means that you can almost for free get a valuable resource, namely information. Information and the gathering of it plays a large role in a RTS game, thus in the past you have had to pay for it with the most valuable resource that you have of them all, time. While at first glance (and perhaps you still think it after this) you thought ghosted buildings only seems to take away some micromanagement, what it truly does is remove the cost of information.
There are still information you have to pay for with time, but not to know the position of his buildings. So I would really like this to be either an option that the mod can have, or one in the battle room, perhaps it would be best to have it in the battle room so everyone could still play their favourit/most popular mod with the setting they want. That's all I can think of for now, if there are any holes in my arguments, well, I guess the opposition will find them in that case
There are, of course, arguments that can be made for both sides, personally I will say that I prefer it if there wouldn't be any ghosted buildings or any ghosted radar dots of them. I however do belive that if there are ghosted buildings, then perhaps having ghosted radar dots aren't such a big deal, even though its a step further in a direction which I don't prefer.
One thing those who argue for ghosted building seems to forget, though, is that scouting in TA is actually easy and quick, at least with aircrafts. The problem was that they couldn't hover around an area so you could memorize the amount or position of all the enemies defences, plants and resource buildings, you could only get a general picture, or send in more planes and try to remember a specific area. The writing feature changed this a bit, but you still only had a general idea of the base, and only a thing or two that you might have had time to mark out better, and even then it wasn't 100% exact.
Now, ghosted building however change this completly, suddenly you get a perfect view of the enemy base with a few cheap peepers. You don't only have a general idea, no, you know exactly where he had that fusion and that kbot lab and that advanced radar etc, etc. This is, a bit exaggerated of course, like using perma los for all buildings. Granted, your enemy could have a secret outpost that you haven't noticed or something, but I did say exaggerated
. The base can change of course, especially if you are playing in a larger FFA, but in a 1vs1 especially the chances that it will change unless you are doing something are pretty small. Sure, he might have reclaimed a plant to get some metal for something else, but the changes will be small and utlimately insignificant.What does this mean, though? Well, sure, you can plan your attacks much better, but personally I don't think it adds anything that good to the strategy part as such. It basically mean information is cheap, what is so positive about that? Information has always been a valuable commodity in RTS games, because if you know what your enemy is up to you can get the upper hand. So with the current system you can cheaply, almost without a cost, get a very valuable resource. Sure, you still have to follow your scout if you want to see what he's building and how many units you are, but you still get a lot of information even if you don't.
In TA however, you had to pay for that information, not in metal or energy, but in time, the most valuable resource of them all in most RTS games to date (perhaps not all, but it is true in TA at least, which is the important part). So, if you analyze things a bit, you will realise that what could seem like some micromanagement issue only, actually play a much larger role in a strategical sense, even though I don't know if all who argue against it even realises this.
So, a short conclusion; Ghosted building means that you can almost for free get a valuable resource, namely information. Information and the gathering of it plays a large role in a RTS game, thus in the past you have had to pay for it with the most valuable resource that you have of them all, time. While at first glance (and perhaps you still think it after this) you thought ghosted buildings only seems to take away some micromanagement, what it truly does is remove the cost of information.
There are still information you have to pay for with time, but not to know the position of his buildings. So I would really like this to be either an option that the mod can have, or one in the battle room, perhaps it would be best to have it in the battle room so everyone could still play their favourit/most popular mod with the setting they want. That's all I can think of for now, if there are any holes in my arguments, well, I guess the opposition will find them in that case
Yet because time is so valuable, most players despise having it wasted when it doesn't need to be. I think that is why so many people like the ghosted buildings. I personally would add units and unconstructed buildings after scouting too, but that isn't my descision. Actually, I think the battleroom option would be very good also. The options could be no ghosting, ghosted buildings, and ghosted buildings and units. That way we can all stop complaining.
SecurE, again as I replied to the previous poster, your argument is meaningless because *anything* can be made to take up the resource of time by adding tediousness to it. I could make the same argument you just did, except say that you shouldn't be able to queue up units in buildings because production of your army should be expensive in the resource of *time*. By allowing me to queue up units in a factory, you're making a large army almost free - all it costs is the metal and energy to build it, everything else is automated. This change would make units more valuable.
And this is exactly what Gabba was getting at - why should we *waste* our time on crap like that? Strategy is about planning and execution, not micromanagement. The winner of a battle should be the person who best positioned his units, who best expanded on the map, who most efficiently recoved from losses, who best covered their base in defenses, who best outflanked the enemy in combat; not who is able to multitask more pointless micromanagement jobs at once.
And this is exactly what Gabba was getting at - why should we *waste* our time on crap like that? Strategy is about planning and execution, not micromanagement. The winner of a battle should be the person who best positioned his units, who best expanded on the map, who most efficiently recoved from losses, who best covered their base in defenses, who best outflanked the enemy in combat; not who is able to multitask more pointless micromanagement jobs at once.
Hmm, I don't know if I didn't express my argument clearly enough or what's the matter, but I didn't say it should take up time just to take up time, I said it should take time because you are getting something very valuable out of it.
I don't even see a comparision between this and making queue, and producing units already takes time. The comparision is in my eyes extremly exaggerated, bordering to absurd. I don't see what gameplay advantage you get without the ability to make queues, but I do with scouting. I argumented that getting a perfect view of the enemy buildings means that any defence planning there is next to useless, because you know exactly where the defences are and make a counter to it. You also know exactly where he has that BB, or that fusion plant without actually having to give anything for this valuable information.
You say that strategy is about planning and execution, but what can you plan with if you don't know anything about the enemy? Denying information for the enemy is a major thing in strategy, and with the ghosted buildings, it is more or less impossible to deny this knowledge to anyone who wants it. As I said, sure, you still have to look at the scout to know what he's producing and what units he has, but you get the position of the buildings for free.
So you get 1/3 of the intelligence you want, without cost! Without ghosted buildings, you aren't "wasting" your time, as you so nicely put it, no, you are investing it to gain intelligence from the enemy.
So, strategy is about planning and execution, well, how about we simply play of full LOS then, because obviously getting intelligence is a waste of time? Why would we have to put any effort on doing such useless things? Strategy is after all only planning and execution, expanding and so forth, scouting obviously doesn't play any part in this, so full LOS seems the best alternative. Not to mention that it would probably reduce the stress on the CPU, its a win win situation.
Now, if you don't think the above claim is absurd, why do you think its such a waste of time to have to follow the scout to get a general idea of the base? If you think that the full LOS argument is a good one, well, then I don't really know what to say.
Actually, the one alternative I see personally is to make scouting extremly hard, which basically means that defences would have to be able to down the fast scout units (and in the case of air units, all of them more or less) without any problems, so you would have to run around with hordes of them or find a place without any defence, that would meant the info cost something again, but its not an alternative I want.
I don't even see a comparision between this and making queue, and producing units already takes time. The comparision is in my eyes extremly exaggerated, bordering to absurd. I don't see what gameplay advantage you get without the ability to make queues, but I do with scouting. I argumented that getting a perfect view of the enemy buildings means that any defence planning there is next to useless, because you know exactly where the defences are and make a counter to it. You also know exactly where he has that BB, or that fusion plant without actually having to give anything for this valuable information.
You say that strategy is about planning and execution, but what can you plan with if you don't know anything about the enemy? Denying information for the enemy is a major thing in strategy, and with the ghosted buildings, it is more or less impossible to deny this knowledge to anyone who wants it. As I said, sure, you still have to look at the scout to know what he's producing and what units he has, but you get the position of the buildings for free.
So you get 1/3 of the intelligence you want, without cost! Without ghosted buildings, you aren't "wasting" your time, as you so nicely put it, no, you are investing it to gain intelligence from the enemy.
So, strategy is about planning and execution, well, how about we simply play of full LOS then, because obviously getting intelligence is a waste of time? Why would we have to put any effort on doing such useless things? Strategy is after all only planning and execution, expanding and so forth, scouting obviously doesn't play any part in this, so full LOS seems the best alternative. Not to mention that it would probably reduce the stress on the CPU, its a win win situation.
Now, if you don't think the above claim is absurd, why do you think its such a waste of time to have to follow the scout to get a general idea of the base? If you think that the full LOS argument is a good one, well, then I don't really know what to say.
Actually, the one alternative I see personally is to make scouting extremly hard, which basically means that defences would have to be able to down the fast scout units (and in the case of air units, all of them more or less) without any problems, so you would have to run around with hordes of them or find a place without any defence, that would meant the info cost something again, but its not an alternative I want.
SecurE, are you discussing this on the theoretical level, or from your gaming experience? Because as the game plays now, it's not that easy to get a full picture of the enemy base. If he's smart he'll have AA scattered on the outskirts of his base, so you'll get a view of the outside of his base at best.
One of the thing you wrote gave me a good idea. You complain that a few cheap peepers give you so much info? Just make it so what they see doesn't appear as ghosted on the map, and add lvl. 2 scouts that actually that actually make them appear. It would make sense that more advanced tech gives you more info. Then, you could also add a building that allows you to have ghosted buildings bleed on the minimap - same idea as the advanced targetting facility, but for another purpose.
AND taking the idea even further, you could have "anti-ghosting" buildings that prevents enemy scouts from mapping a certain area. A similar idea to Red Alert's shroud generators, which grew back FOW. But this is just an idea, I haven't thought enough about it to know if I like it myself!
@Kixxe: - I don't agree that TA is much about micromanagement. I think that what made it unique in its time was less micromanagement than other games of the RTS genre, and a good resource system and great graphics (well, and a lot of units).
- The AI you're mentioning as a joke actually sounds like a great idea. But you know what? It's almost impossible to pull off - AI developers everywhere wish their computer opponent would do that properly. In Spring you have a large variety of real 3d maps (compare to the one format of a Warcraft III map: narrow forest-delimited corridors) and units that makes it even harder. In short, if someone makes this AI, I'll use it. If it makes stupid mistakes, I'll stop using it (or save it for special circumstances). If it feels like the game is playing itself, I'll stop using it. But I'm not afraid of experimenting.
Oh yeah, and [IMO^].
One of the thing you wrote gave me a good idea. You complain that a few cheap peepers give you so much info? Just make it so what they see doesn't appear as ghosted on the map, and add lvl. 2 scouts that actually that actually make them appear. It would make sense that more advanced tech gives you more info. Then, you could also add a building that allows you to have ghosted buildings bleed on the minimap - same idea as the advanced targetting facility, but for another purpose.AND taking the idea even further, you could have "anti-ghosting" buildings that prevents enemy scouts from mapping a certain area. A similar idea to Red Alert's shroud generators, which grew back FOW. But this is just an idea, I haven't thought enough about it to know if I like it myself!
@Kixxe: - I don't agree that TA is much about micromanagement. I think that what made it unique in its time was less micromanagement than other games of the RTS genre, and a good resource system and great graphics (well, and a lot of units).
- The AI you're mentioning as a joke actually sounds like a great idea. But you know what? It's almost impossible to pull off - AI developers everywhere wish their computer opponent would do that properly. In Spring you have a large variety of real 3d maps (compare to the one format of a Warcraft III map: narrow forest-delimited corridors) and units that makes it even harder. In short, if someone makes this AI, I'll use it. If it makes stupid mistakes, I'll stop using it (or save it for special circumstances). If it feels like the game is playing itself, I'll stop using it. But I'm not afraid of experimenting.
Oh yeah, and [IMO^].