|
a bone to pick posted:Wow this thread was actually fun to read and post in before the RTS nerds hosed it all up. Very true. This is how you know that RTS games aren't very good.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:there's no "prime" strategy in starcraft either the difference is that starcraft lacks meaningful mechanical complexity to ever evolve beyond basic troop movement serving as the backbone of the strategy in the game. the only response you can have with a marine vs a siege tank or battle cruiser is to run the gently caress away. in that regard, starcraft's strategic elements only run so deep and why the game pales in comparison to modern RTSes
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
The Skeleton King posted:RTS games aren't very good. agreed tbh
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:supcom is garbage that deliberately introduced lag to how fast units respond to you because they didn't want their game to be starcraft
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
people seem to try to play supcom 1:1 like starcraft and that just doesn't work. the game is all about automation and thinking 12 steps ahead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
worms 2 is much better than Starcraft. fight me
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:This is exactly what I was trying to say. There's nothing wrong with becoming competitively good at a game, but games explicitly made to be the next top ~esport~ are usually leaving the fun part out of it. I don't blame the game companies for doing it because they are doing their job and making a ton of money, but it's hard not to be nostalgic for the time when there was minimal online multiplayer so games had to be fun if you wanted people to buy them. part of the problem is that "esport" doesn't just mean "competitively good at the game." if developers were sitting down asking themselves "how can we make a game that rewards you for getting incredibly good at it, with as much depth as possible, focused on a cluster of related skills that competitive-minded people enjoy developing" we'd be getting much better games what esports actually means is trying to serve two masters at once. the game has to be deep enough that good players don't quit out of misery and boredom but it also has to have as much mass appeal as possible, so they gut any mechanic that isn't intuitively obvious, consistently pick the wrong side when playability and watchability come into conflict, nerf things that frustrate average players instead of balancing the game around the highest levels of play, and generally just make a giant ball of compromises that people play because you can't make big prizes or stream money off a game unless everyone understands how it works (because they play it too) SpaceClown posted:people seem to try to play supcom 1:1 like starcraft and that just doesn't work. making fewer and less difficult decisions in the same amount of time isn't more depth, hth e: automation is the last thing you want in an RTS if you want it to actually push your limits (or any competitive real-time genre, really, the whole point is "look what human beings can do") Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:e: automation is the last thing you want in an RTS if you want it to actually push your limits (or any competitive real-time genre, really, the whole point is "look what human beings can do") the future of esport https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIRT6xRQkf8
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:e: automation is the last thing you want in an RTS if you want it to actually push your limits (or any competitive real-time genre, really, the whole point is "look what human beings can do") Requiring players to have 400 APM to execute basic ideas isn't strategy. Technical depth does not make a game better. There is a difference between strategic depth and artificial depth. If an action is difficult to perform because by nature it has to be, that's fine. But if an action is difficult to perform because it's designed to be, then that's anti-player, and while it may separate players by skill at performing it, it does not add any strategic value to the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:making fewer and less difficult decisions in the same amount of time isn't more depth, hth you dont seem to grasp that just building a base doesn't win you a game in supcom you automate your main base and your FOBs because, you know, you still have to actually put your units to work, and that's where supcom really shines. You use automation to cut back on the amount of time you're babysitting your bases and like i said, its all about effective use of large scale, multifront combined arms warfare. It requires being able to not only keep track of multiple fronts that each will involve more units on one side than you can spawn in a single game of starcraft but consist of the same mechanical and strategic depth of starcraft, if not to a greater extent due to more useful specialized unit types such as missile launchers and stealth field generators.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:the future of esport well i mean in that sequence Data describes a poorly balanced game without any safeguards against stalemating. good competitive games have limits like diminishing resources or timers or a shrinking arena to prevent exactly that from happening. Go ends when there's no more territory to be captured, Overwatch (which is kind of mediocre but got this part right after a few tries) has escalating overtime which gets more and more strict the longer it goes on, StarCraft has finite resources that get expended in a long game forcing you to expand and eventually engage in a battle of attrition if the game goes long enough, FGs have a 99 second timer and the leader on life totals is considered "in the lead" and wins in a time-out, and so on
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:Technical depth does not make a game better. There is a difference between strategic depth and artificial depth actually technical depth does make a game better. it is sometimes a trade-off with bad complexity -- for example, a pop-up that makes me solve math problems in the middle of an FPS how well you can control your units is legitimate to an RTS SpaceClown posted:you dont seem to grasp that just building a base doesn't win you a game in supcom no, like i just got through saying, supcom sucks rear end at "putting your units to work," because of how it cripples micro if your RTS has hands-off base-building and hands-off micro, it's wasting the entire premise of a real-time game
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
RTS fans are more autistic than shmup and smash bros players combined.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:Technical depth does not make a game better. There is a difference between strategic depth and artificial depth. If an action is difficult to perform because by nature it has to be, that's fine. But if an action is difficult to perform because it's designed to be, then that's anti-player, and while it may separate players by skill at performing it, it does not add any strategic value to the game. But that depends. Direct control in Men of War is an important tool that is key to winning battles and its very obtuse to use. Tuxedo Catfish posted:nah, it's poo poo that fails to actually understand any of the systems that made starcraft good. micro is more limited, base building puts less importance on distinctions of territory and terrain, it's slow and ungainly. the resemblance is incredibly superficial. but this is false. The micro isn't more limited, it's simply less important and far harder to do because the amount of units in play is several times that of starcraft. terrain and territory are far more important in supcom than in starcraft, what are you talking about? starcraft exists explicity on a 2D plane with impassible areas. supcom has projectile trajectory and utilizing walls to create killzones for point defenses is key to building a successful base. poor defense placement will just result in your defenses shooting at the terrain instead of their target. the high ground is an extreme tactical advantage for anything that isn't artillery or missiles, especially for units with low profiles like tanks. it also means air holds a lot bigger role in supcom, as you can simply fly over mountains and walls with troop transports to drop units behind enemy lines and keep the player distracted from the front. also, it's not slow and ungainly, it's a game on a much larger scale than starcraft and as a result if you're just blobbing your units in one giant killstack instead of engaging on multiple fronts to cope with the large scale, you're a gosh dang idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
FFXV is really good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:it also means air holds a lot bigger role in supcom, as you can simply fly over mountains and walls with troop transports to drop units behind enemy lines and keep the player distracted from the front. "air holds a lot bigger role in supcom, because you can do a thing StarCraft literally perfected and which is more complex to do in StarCraft due to the increased opportunity for micro" SpaceClown posted:you're a gosh dang idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Contra 4 is too hard
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
in fairness i can kind of understand your confusion if your reference point is exclusively StarCraft 2 but there's a reason I've been namedropping Brood War every three posts
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Uncharted 1 and 2 are pretty fun. The Last Of Us is profoundly unfun, as if Naughty Dog wanted to punish you for childishly believing that video games are entertainment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:The problem is that pretty much nobody, from the lowest of the low in the bronze league all the way up, plays for fun. Everyone wants to become competitive at it. Improving at stuff can be its own fun reward
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:how well you can control your units is legitimate to an RTS There are some issues with this. 1.) There is a very important micro game to supcom, however lategame it isn't viable to micro 10,000 units and there is indeed a paradygm shift between mid-late game that is very important to keep in mind. 2.) Starcraft isn't very good at micro in actuality. Neither is supcom, but don't expect an engaging micro from either game. 3.) There is nothing hands-off about the base building in Supcom. It doesn't build itself for you and it doesn't automate itself for you. That's up to you to do and to modify the automation to suit the situation at hand as you need. The base building is simply far more deep than Starcraft's and because of that there are tools at your disposal to make your life easier so you can continue to focus on the actual war going on. Lategame Supcom is very much all about theater scale warfare and there IS a micro game to consider, but concerning yourself with your tanks when you want to make sure your experimentals reach their target is beyond retarded. But experimentals aren't the only thing that you can micro. A personal strategy of mine is to use air transports to drop 20 or so T3 assault bots near a weak point at the enemy base and using effective micro cause a ton of havoc, taking the other player's attention away from my advancing regiments long enough for them to penetrate the outer defenses and pave the way for my experimentals in that portion of the map to flood into the base.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
esports should be more like pro wrestling
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Zorodius posted:esports should be more like pro wrestling Let me tell you about Lee "Life" Seung-Hyun
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:actually technical depth does make a game better. it is sometimes a trade-off with bad complexity -- for example, a pop-up that makes me solve math problems in the middle of an FPS No, technical depth exists purely to stroke the ego of players who are insecure about the strategic depth of their game. That is its sole purpose. You still have to micro like hell in Spring. The difference is that your micro accomplishes more. Since you can automate your economy and surveillance to a much higher level, it gives you more time to optimize your troop movements and configurations. Starcraft's very high technical requirements give you enough time to play checkers with your troops in between "things you have to do to play the game", while TA's technical requirements give you enough time to play chess with your troops. To put this another way: In a fighting game you could make special moves two half circles. Or you could make them one quarter circle. Either way it accomplishes the same thing. You could make the frame window to execute something 6 frames or 3 frames. Either way it accomplishes the same thing. What is gained by making the actions physically harder to perform? All it does is stroke the egos of the people who spend months grinding to learn them. For spectators, the experience is no different either way. They don't see the fingerpresses. It doesn't add to the beauty of the game for them. In a fighting game the strategic depth doesn't come from being able to press hard combinations of buttons it comes from having really good spacing, reactions, reads, timing, and the tactical depth comes from knowing all the various combos and cancels that are in the game and committing them to muscle memory--which is a type of technical difficulty which is not arbitrary, and is justified. However, in fighting game communities there is the same preponderance of highly pretentious players that feel the arbitrary difficulty of pressing really hard combinations of buttons to accomplish basic tactics that could be done with much more forgiving inputs is important somehow. And you see all the same bullshit arguments from them. Bodyholes fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Improving at stuff can be its own fun reward I agree but the community in general in these games is extremely negative and full of very poor winners who are highly likely to call you a human being or something whether you lose to them or beat them. The better you get the more toxic (read: autistic) people get. Hardly anyone actually means "good game" anymore and every time competitive people lose they either lash out at you or themselves and I just don't see how that's enjoyable. I mean if it's your job, fine get that passionate about it but it's a big turnoff to a normal player.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Let me tell you about Lee "Life" Seung-Hyun it should be in the contract that e-athletes must smack talk their opponents and tear off their shirts before commencing cyber battle
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:However, in fighting game communities there is the same preponderance of highly pretentious players that feel the arbitrary difficulty of pressing really hard combinations of buttons to accomplish basic tactics that could be done with much more forgiving inputs is important somehow. And you see all the same bullshit arguments from them. No way! This is why Marvel vs Capcom 3 is the best fighting game ever. It comes with an "easy mode" that lets you do all the special moves with one button press. You can basically play the game like Street Fighter, or Smash Brothers. There are a few other fighters that do this, and I love it because it lets newbies play against me and have a good time with cheap fireball spam and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
In starcraft you have to manage 100 units at the most and a single base and due to the way maps are designed the most active engagements at one time will be 3 or 4, or at the very least decisive ones. In supcom you have to manage your main base's manufacturing focus, your FOB's defenses, thousands of air sea and land units, your economy, your experimentals and there are usually 5 or 6 active fronts consisting of hundreds of units at any given time 20 minutes into the game. You have to constantly analyze the terrain to ensure you've got sufficient cover and can actually shoot the enemy. You have to get intel on the enemy base for the best point of entry, you have to make a decision on what unit makeup your regiments will have in order to be effective against all threats. You have to consider that at any given moment 40 minutes in the other player will probably have nukes so it's important to space your battalions and experimentals out so that when one gets nuked, the others don't go with it. You have to consider contingency plans when your major FOBs get attacked because if you don't it will severely hamper your economy and rapid force projection in the area surrounding that FOB. You have to keep an eye on enemy unit types to make sure that they aren't adapting to a weak link in your forces. Your air campaign runs parallel to your ground campaign and requires almost as much attention. Supcom is Starcraft turned up to 11, plain and simple. Good micro and macro is necessary to being a good player. There's a lot more involved in supcom, it's a much bigger game. To deny that it has more strategy at play than starcraft is just as naive and wrong as thinking that build orders are all there is to being an effective starcraft player.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
This is a new opinion that I just thought of totally completely unprompted from this thread but Trump should probably deport anyone with a battle.net account.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:No way! This is why Marvel vs Capcom 3 is the best fighting game ever. It comes with an "easy mode" that lets you do all the special moves with one button press. You can basically play the game like Street Fighter, or Smash Brothers. There are a few other fighters that do this, and I love it because it lets newbies play against me and have a good time with cheap fireball spam and stuff. I'm a big fan of Rivals of Aether. The subtle and brilliant thing about RoA's 2v2 online in it is that only people who have friends can play 2v2. So it selects out all the really hardcore autists because they obviously don't have friends. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:In a fighting game you could make special moves two half circles. Or you could make them one quarter circle. Either way it accomplishes the same thing. You could make the frame window to execute something 6 frames or 3 frames. Either way it accomplishes the same thing. What is gained by making the actions physically harder to perform? Lots of things, and your assumption that it doesn't accomplish anything betrays your misunderstanding of competition in general. First off, "it's harder to do" is a legitimate reason in itself. We have worldwide competitions that don't involve a lot of decision-making but do involve doing difficult, repetitive tasks under pressure and being the best in the world at it, because it's interesting to see how far people can go. There are limits to this in practice -- a game that pushes too far in this direction will have no playerbase, and that's not good either -- but it's not inherently bad any more than it's inherently good. Second, it's not just difficulty. A double half-circle motion in a fighting game cannot be buffered into certain other moves that a single quarter-circle can; the actual physical act of doing the input and its compatibility (and relative speed) from different starting positions or the ability to do the input for two different moves at once and get one or the other based on circumstances are both good examples of how that impacts gameplay. The extremely limited unit selection option in StarCraft creates more choices -- instead of "which of these two blobs of 200 units do I need to focus on right now" the relevant question becomes "which of these dozens of groups of 12 units along one or two fronts is most important?" Third, the experience of finding something incredibly challenging and alien and watching it become natural and intuitive just feels really good. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
RTSs except for some of the c&c games all suck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
If I can't attack-move to victory then it's not a game I want to play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Universe Master posted:RTSs except for some of the c&c games all suck. this is the thread for unpopular videogame opinions, not blatantly wrong video game opinions
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
If anything knows me it is that I have a mean ken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:this is the thread for unpopular videogame opinions, not blatantly wrong video game opinions With maybe 2 to 3 exceptions he is right
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
SpaceClown posted:In starcraft you have to manage 100 units at the most and a single base i'm beginning to wonder if you've even played starcraft or if this is some kind of very elaborate troll
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
like your entire block of text there is "you have to do a bunch of things that you also have to do in StarCraft, except you can automate a lot of it and your units reward attention less which allows you to run more of them at once"
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Lots of things, and your assumption that it doesn't accomplish anything betrays your misunderstanding of competition in general. was this supposed to be quoting me? im going to assume so quote:First off, "it's harder to do" is a legitimate reason in itself. We have worldwide competitions that don't involve a lot of decision-making but do involve doing difficult, repetitive tasks under pressure and being the best in the world at it, because it's interesting to see how far people can go. There are limits to this in practice -- a game that pushes too far in this direction will have no playerbase, and that's not good either -- but it's not inherently bad any more than it's inherently good. But that also has nothing to do with strategy and is one of the main complaints people are having with dune 2 clones. quote:The extremely limited unit selection option in StarCraft creates more choices -- instead of "which of these two blobs of 200 units do I need to focus on right now" the relevant question becomes "which of these dozens of groups of 12 units along one or two fronts is most important?" Macro is a basic skill in supcom and its the very minimum requirement to playing the game. A player microing in the lategame will steamroll over a player who isn't. Being able to micro at the very least 1,000 units across a multi km map is entry level supcom competitive skills, and the fact that you keep saying that there is no micro in supcom makes me think all you've done is play the campaign and skirmish against the awful AI because that's really the only way you are getting away with ignoring the micro entirely. You seem to think that by the multifront clusterfuck that is lategame i mean selecting huge blobs in strategic view and moving them while hoping for the best. That's the hallmark of a terrible player who never bothered to learn how to play the lategame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:20
|
|