I like what tjosan said about allowing strategy develop from the players.
What I dislike about some games nowadays is stuff is built with certain expectations in mind. For example, the RTS Lord of the Rings games had a very cut-and-dry rock-paper-scissors system. Is that "balanced"? Maybe. Is there strategy? Sure, make sure you hit those mounted units with pikemen. Was it fun? Not really, at least not for me.
Basically make sure everything has a purpose, but don't make them so refined that people can't improvise and devise new ways, methods, or things to do with them. Otherwise we end up with very similar predictable games.
It is from this view point that I dislike very specialized commander micro, not to mention I dislike baby-sitting in general. This is also what really makes diverse tech trees appealing, as long as they aren't so complicated it takes players 5 games just to find their way around them.
As far as the list Canadian posted, those are all interesting ideas. I would throw out assisted aiming and the individual powers personally, and implementing all the ideas would overwhelm most comms. However, it's a start.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1681684:date=Jun 21 2008, 05:38 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Jun 21 2008, 05:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would imagine the beauty of a team online multiplayer game is that roles can't be defined by the game itself or the developers, but rather grow from the players and the teams as they play. For example: one team could end up having a marine influencing the overall strategy and pace, and doing most of the "microing" in directing tactical manouvers etc, leaving the commander in a support role and simply timing tech and strategy depending on resource income rate.
It would be naïve to not take this in consideration when designing the game, and as such including these high intensity micro tasks is actually vital if we wish to keep any player hooked to commanding in the meta game for any longer period of time.
As the situation stands right now, this is exactly what has happened: most "strategies" have either already been decided on before the game, or quite simply the game has evolved far enough as to isolate the "one and only" strategy to such an extent that commanding now mostly is point and click medpacks, and following set research paths.
Finally, I see no reason to suspect that by adding high intensity tasks any possible strategizer role would be denied the commander. Primarily because the fps role of the rest of the team is always involving enough to 'counter' this. Secondarily because any ideal task to add to the arsenal of the commander for this purpose would, alone or combined with other such tasks, always stay out of reach of complete mastery. This would make any additional benifit of executing these tasks come with an exponential raise in difficulty. Be better - gain a moderate bonus. Be 'normal' - you can still perform the basic tasks and play the game as intended.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good post. <!--quoteo(post=1681804:date=Jun 23 2008, 10:07 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Jun 23 2008, 10:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681804"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like what tjosan said about allowing strategy develop from the players.
What I dislike about some games nowadays is stuff is built with certain expectations in mind. For example, the RTS Lord of the Rings games had a very cut-and-dry rock-paper-scissors system. Is that "balanced"? Maybe. Is there strategy? Sure, make sure you hit those mounted units with pikemen. Was it fun? Not really, at least not for me.
Basically make sure everything has a purpose, but don't make them so refined that people can't improvise and devise new ways, methods, or things to do with them. Otherwise we end up with very similar predictable games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> While I don't agree with your conclusion <b>spellman23</b> I definitely agree with the quoted portion above. While the options in NS were limited they didn't have a RPS feel. The dev team avoided hard counters for the most part. the hard counters that do exist are at the highest levels, and don't require separate tech trees to get to. If you have HA and need JP, you all ready have the proto, you just need to research it. I think that's important to prevent the FPS element from being ineffectual and shallow.
<!--quoteo(post=1681684:date=Jun 21 2008, 09:38 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Jun 21 2008, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As the situation stands right now, this is exactly what has happened: most "strategies" have either already been decided on before the game, or quite simply the game has evolved far enough as to isolate the "one and only" strategy to such an extent that commanding now mostly is point and click medpacks, and following set research paths.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> True for Natural Selection and true for C&C3 (MMMMMMAMOTH TANK). Untrue for SC.
Even at the very top tier when players play by the book - you still have the bisus and the anytimes and the flashes and the elkys. They all have different playing styles and do different things every game. The things they do different might not be completely earth shattering, but they are very pimp and make the games fun to watch. The things that usually remain the same in StarCraft are the openings. The openings are usually very similar because your opening needs to be rush proof - or you can just do something really ballsy and do what oldschool terrans did, and then get probed with a shield battery. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Good points <b>aNytiMe</b>. You wouldn't have happened to have pulled that alias from someone in the pro SC scene...
But yeah, I agree. There's still great variety in SC, wondering how the early builds will go or different styles, like the one guy whose tag I can't remember who's the master of macro, so he'll always dish out way more units to a battle, but doesn't micro quite as well as say Bisu. He's a Terran guy.
<b>EDIT</b>: Unfortunately, the mid-games tend to settle into very similar situations, with interesting differences depending on the opening moves and how well they worked. SC is also extremely heavily influenced by the map. Some are more Carrier Friendly, others inclined to fast expand, etc. Still, the players continue to surprise me with new tricks. <b>/EDIT</b>
Also, thanks <b>locallyunscene</b>. I knew there was a term for the "hard counters" I was thinking about, but couldn't remember. It's also what I like about NS is exactly what you mentioned. Nothing has quite a perfect counter until proto decisions. Sure shotguns give an edge on offensive Lerks and Fades, but LMGs could work and perhaps spend res for upgrades instead. It's awesome!
However, sometimes it feels a little too constrictive as far as tech diversity, which is why people tend to fall back on very similar systems. That's something I dislike. That's why I would like to see a little more tech diversity to allow more tactical/strategic variety. It's not a pressing issue, just something to chew on.
<!--quoteo(post=1681836:date=Jun 23 2008, 01:31 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Jun 23 2008, 01:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681836"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->True for Natural Selection and true for C&C3 (MMMMMMAMOTH TANK). Untrue for SC.
Even at the very top tier when players play by the book - you still have the bisus and the anytimes and the flashes and the elkys. They all have different playing styles and do different things every game. The things they do different might not be completely earth shattering, but they are very pimp and make the games fun to watch. The things that usually remain the same in StarCraft are the openings. The openings are usually very similar because your opening needs to be rush proof - or you can just do something really ballsy and do what oldschool terrans did, and then get probed with a shield battery. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, but those nuances would also be present in NS had NS had a large enough following presently. The difference being that NS is, at heart, a FPS game and as such they would mostly lie in the FPS part of the game - where eleven out of twelve players work. These nuances in tactical ability and preferences could - and probably should - in a 'more perfect game' also influence tech choices and overall strategy. This is where I feel NS2 can be improved - in the details.
It is most important in any case to remember that this is a FPS game, and that the FPS part of the game should most likely shape the RTS part and not the other way around. If the goal is to keep the heart and soul of NS1 alive.
Comments
What I dislike about some games nowadays is stuff is built with certain expectations in mind. For example, the RTS Lord of the Rings games had a very cut-and-dry rock-paper-scissors system. Is that "balanced"? Maybe. Is there strategy? Sure, make sure you hit those mounted units with pikemen. Was it fun? Not really, at least not for me.
Basically make sure everything has a purpose, but don't make them so refined that people can't improvise and devise new ways, methods, or things to do with them. Otherwise we end up with very similar predictable games.
It is from this view point that I dislike very specialized commander micro, not to mention I dislike baby-sitting in general. This is also what really makes diverse tech trees appealing, as long as they aren't so complicated it takes players 5 games just to find their way around them.
As far as the list Canadian posted, those are all interesting ideas. I would throw out assisted aiming and the individual powers personally, and implementing all the ideas would overwhelm most comms. However, it's a start.
It would be naïve to not take this in consideration when designing the game, and as such including these high intensity micro tasks is actually vital if we wish to keep any player hooked to commanding in the meta game for any longer period of time.
As the situation stands right now, this is exactly what has happened: most "strategies" have either already been decided on before the game, or quite simply the game has evolved far enough as to isolate the "one and only" strategy to such an extent that commanding now mostly is point and click medpacks, and following set research paths.
Finally, I see no reason to suspect that by adding high intensity tasks any possible strategizer role would be denied the commander. Primarily because the fps role of the rest of the team is always involving enough to 'counter' this. Secondarily because any ideal task to add to the arsenal of the commander for this purpose would, alone or combined with other such tasks, always stay out of reach of complete mastery. This would make any additional benifit of executing these tasks come with an exponential raise in difficulty. Be better - gain a moderate bonus. Be 'normal' - you can still perform the basic tasks and play the game as intended.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good post.
<!--quoteo(post=1681804:date=Jun 23 2008, 10:07 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spellman23 @ Jun 23 2008, 10:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681804"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like what tjosan said about allowing strategy develop from the players.
What I dislike about some games nowadays is stuff is built with certain expectations in mind. For example, the RTS Lord of the Rings games had a very cut-and-dry rock-paper-scissors system. Is that "balanced"? Maybe. Is there strategy? Sure, make sure you hit those mounted units with pikemen. Was it fun? Not really, at least not for me.
Basically make sure everything has a purpose, but don't make them so refined that people can't improvise and devise new ways, methods, or things to do with them. Otherwise we end up with very similar predictable games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I don't agree with your conclusion <b>spellman23</b> I definitely agree with the quoted portion above. While the options in NS were limited they didn't have a RPS feel. The dev team avoided hard counters for the most part. the hard counters that do exist are at the highest levels, and don't require separate tech trees to get to. If you have HA and need JP, you all ready have the proto, you just need to research it. I think that's important to prevent the FPS element from being ineffectual and shallow.
True for Natural Selection and true for C&C3 (MMMMMMAMOTH TANK). Untrue for SC.
Even at the very top tier when players play by the book - you still have the bisus and the anytimes and the flashes and the elkys. They all have different playing styles and do different things every game. The things they do different might not be completely earth shattering, but they are very pimp and make the games fun to watch. The things that usually remain the same in StarCraft are the openings. The openings are usually very similar because your opening needs to be rush proof - or you can just do something really ballsy and do what oldschool terrans did, and then get probed with a shield battery. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
But yeah, I agree. There's still great variety in SC, wondering how the early builds will go or different styles, like the one guy whose tag I can't remember who's the master of macro, so he'll always dish out way more units to a battle, but doesn't micro quite as well as say Bisu. He's a Terran guy.
<b>EDIT</b>: Unfortunately, the mid-games tend to settle into very similar situations, with interesting differences depending on the opening moves and how well they worked. SC is also extremely heavily influenced by the map. Some are more Carrier Friendly, others inclined to fast expand, etc. Still, the players continue to surprise me with new tricks.
<b>/EDIT</b>
Also, thanks <b>locallyunscene</b>. I knew there was a term for the "hard counters" I was thinking about, but couldn't remember. It's also what I like about NS is exactly what you mentioned. Nothing has quite a perfect counter until proto decisions. Sure shotguns give an edge on offensive Lerks and Fades, but LMGs could work and perhaps spend res for upgrades instead. It's awesome!
However, sometimes it feels a little too constrictive as far as tech diversity, which is why people tend to fall back on very similar systems. That's something I dislike. That's why I would like to see a little more tech diversity to allow more tactical/strategic variety. It's not a pressing issue, just something to chew on.
Even at the very top tier when players play by the book - you still have the bisus and the anytimes and the flashes and the elkys. They all have different playing styles and do different things every game. The things they do different might not be completely earth shattering, but they are very pimp and make the games fun to watch. The things that usually remain the same in StarCraft are the openings. The openings are usually very similar because your opening needs to be rush proof - or you can just do something really ballsy and do what oldschool terrans did, and then get probed with a shield battery. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, but those nuances would also be present in NS had NS had a large enough following presently. The difference being that NS is, at heart, a FPS game and as such they would mostly lie in the FPS part of the game - where eleven out of twelve players work. These nuances in tactical ability and preferences could - and probably should - in a 'more perfect game' also influence tech choices and overall strategy. This is where I feel NS2 can be improved - in the details.
It is most important in any case to remember that this is a FPS game, and that the FPS part of the game should most likely shape the RTS part and not the other way around. If the goal is to keep the heart and soul of NS1 alive.