No, he shouldn't win. He failed to develop a required skill set. The true strategist should stick to games that favor him, as the faster should stick to ones that favor him. Turn based games favor the armchair general (Or admiral, in sins case.) where he can take his time and decide on the truly optimal use of his turn. Real time favors the reflexes and speed, because it's... Real time.

Now what I'm going to say might shock you - but if you want a game not decided by APM, don't play a game where time is a limiting factor. But let me tell you something else, these games are successful BECAUSE of the APM/time factor. Turn based is all about strategy and optimal choices. Not to beat the dead horse but chess is the perfect example. The more time you take, the more moves ahead you can predict/plan for. Whereas when you add the timed chess game, you focus more on the quick witted fellow than the best strategist. What I want to know is why someone with a exceptional APM is automatically considered INFERIOR to you? That to me, is bullshit. You try and suggest that you're so much better and deserve to win in a genre defined by time and the overwhelm factor, and that because you're so superior they should get rid of the time and overwhelm so you can win without expanding your skillset. Do you not see why this is LUDICROUS? Honestly, play a turn based game if you're an armchair general, the quick witted players with good apm and reflexes are always going to be beating you in a REAL TIME strategy game.

Oh and, because my APM is better, I should get an advantage in a turn base game right, like if I finish my turn sooner I should get bonuses... No, I shouldn't, because that makes about as much sense as what you're trying to say. Stop trying to get rid of the real time element and play a fucking turn based game, go learn how to play the best turn based game of all time: Chess. It's an amazing game with limitless appeal, I still play it daily. And if that's not your cup of tea, maybe try one of the many 4x games? Or even civ 4. Personally I adore the civilization games, and when I want to take the time and win with strategy not quick thinking and speed, I'll play it. But when I want to play a REAL TIME strategy game, I choose one with REAL TIME elements. You know, like time maybe.

hmm, last post didn't go through.

Anyway.

What makes a real time strategy game real time. Hint: it's in the name.

With that in mind, we recognize that a rts game is built around the overwhelm factor and speed, as well as how those two things work together. We should understand that quick thinking and a good apm are absolute requirements in a game that is designed to incorporate time. If that wasn't the case, it would be a turn based game where you take turns at the same time, but it's not, it's an RTS.

The answer to this whole thing is simple, sibilantae... No, the strategist should lose. He is playing a game that does not cater to his skill set, whereas the player with the good APM but lacking the true strategic thinking ability IS playing in a game/genre that focuses on his. The armchair general (Or admiral) should be playing a game like chess, or if he requires the visuals, civ 4. Or a true 4x. Those types of games value strategy and not much less. When you suggest that the strategist should win because of his strategic thinking in a game that requires another skill set, it's no better than suggesting the player with no strategy and a high APM should win in a turn based games, he should get some sort of resource bonus, or combat buff for finishing his turn quicker. That's ludicrous, absolutely insane. Stop trying to suggest that strategy is the only factor in an RTS, if you want a game with only strategy, get a TBS, there are again, many exceptional TBS titles.

Understand everyone that in a real time strategy game you must possess first the ability to use your time effectively (Speed), secondly you must possess a winning strategy that can adapt and defeat your opponents strategy (Strategic thinking). And that's the order, the true veteran must possess both, but the average player against an average player, the one that focuses on maximizing his effective use of time, is the superior competitor and does deserve to win. Stop acting like taking full advantage of the RTS game mechanic that is the overwhelm factor is a bad thing, it's part of the game, and it's absolutely needed for it to be a true RTS. Otherwise as I said before, it just becomes a turn based game where you're taking your turns at the same time.

Overwhelm requires strategic thinking in it's own right anyway, do I micro that illuminator closer to increase it's dps with the side banks? Or let it fire at max range and go upgrade that new planet my colony frigate just got to increase my economy and be able to afford more illuminators. Do I want to auto cast gravity warhead and go play macro (Building new extractors/tradeports/labs/ships as soon as you have the money instead of microing too heavily and having a build up of resources, which IS a mistake.) Or do I want to use it manually to get full advantage of it but it will require me to stay and watch the battle and micro, instead of macro. Do I want to leave malice on auto cast and risk only hitting a couple ships or it getting used while lets say my other ships are targeting a group that won't be affected by it? It would let me focus more on building more ships and keeping my resources spent instead of Q'ing a lot of stuff at a later time which is poor macro.

The skilled player manages to spend his resources as he plays and still manually cast warhead/malice or maximize his ships dps. APM IS SKILL IN A REAL TIME STRATEGY GAME. If you the strategist are getting overwhelmed trying to micro and use your fleet to it's full potential but piling up resources and not continually sending more ships, then you have failed as an RTS gamer. You need to work on developing your RTS skillset instead of relying on less than half of a game to win, you need to take all aspects.

I'll say this one last thing, people suggesting the overwhelm factor or APM is not good for an RTS, you should be playing a TBS, you will enjoy it more, because an RTS is not the game for you. Overwhelm and APM are the reasons RTS games are successful, it forces you to make decisions about how you use your time, and in that sense, APM makes each second more valuable. And that is a built in design from the developers. Without it, the entire game would be one big build order of maximum efficiency rather than skill, strategy, apm, whatever. It wouldn't be an RTS anymore. The less important it becomes to use the time available to you the less variations there becomes, the less difference in skill. Those are the games that devolve into rock paper scissors, not starcraft, not any true RTS.

Seems the forum lagged and it did go through, some parts of the second post will be repeats, sorry, shitty editing system won't allow me to put all of it in one and delete the other.

Mate, I didn't mean offence - the assumption of an inferior high APM-count player was to illustrate the point, and is by no means a generalization. I don't automatically assume this anyway - I am personally both a lousy strategist and somewhat slow-witted in gaming.



I actually disagree with you, though I see your point. Understanding your analogy of chess, I don't think that a high-APM count necessarily counts as quick-wittedness (but I'm not saying that it can't, obviously).
There's no need to get uppity at me; I'm not saying that APM should be eliminated - just that the emphasis on it needs to be decreased somewhat. This isn't a demand, or an insult, or anything like that. Just don't automatically assume I'm taking the extreme viewpoint.
And if there's something I said that indicated any sort of extremeness, then I apologize for it now. Just back off.

Apologies for my rather hostile last post, and this double

This explanation is a really good one. Thanks.

I'm not angry, at anyone but the people who made the forum I don't mean to come off as hostile, just this discussion has been going on for the better part of my life, and it's the same thing over and over. I love TBS games, FF tactics is a good example of a game I've spent hundreds of hours on, because I love taking the time to make the perfect strategy, advance wars too, civ 3 was one I probably spent even a thousand hours on, it's just they're different styles of play, and I personally can't agree that strategy should be the end all of an RTS game, the time element is why I play it. If I want a good strategic war to satisfy the armchair general within, I'm gonna play chess or load up some Civ3-4.

I think my second post did a good job of describing why I think APM and effective use of time are important to an RTS, though you can have varying degrees, to me part of the gameplay is always going to be doing the best I can to fight against that overwhelm factor and do as much as possible and efficiently as possible. That's an RTS to me, a TBS is all about the making the optimal decisions, which is cool, and I love to play them, but it really is a different style of gaming. If you really think that strategy should outweigh the overwhelm factor, it becomes all about the build order and nothing else, if you feel that's not the case, try and give an example of how else you could decide who is the most "skilled" or the most gifted when it comes to "strategy" if you can do that to a reasonable extent, I might change my mind, but for all the thinking I've given this subject, I doubt it's possible.

Keep in mind however, there's a certain line where micro outweighs macro, that's the only grey area here. Both Micro (APM)and Macro(Decision making on how to spend your APM, I treat my time as it's own resource, except it's one that scales with how fast I am, it alters my build orders, it alters my micro, it alters the outcome of the game, and I feel it should) work together to decide how the game works, to me what defines an RTS is the overwhelm factor, if I feel like I can just queue up everything and have the optimal build order, I get bored, and feel like I'm playing a flashy TBS game that has no substance comparatively.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying a different playstyle, but I think people are looking at the wrong genre to satisfy their gaming needs. An RTS game is simply built around time, with a large portion of the strategy being how to best use your time, a lesser portion being the combined blob of units and how it is comprised. To me building the correct amount of each ship is good, it denotes a strategic thinking. Believe me, I really do love strategy, I number crunch and playtest for data to get the very best in strategies so I can be the best, but my APM when it counts is a far bigger factor in who wins games. My macro is far superior to most players in sins because of the math I do, and my micro is unrivaled unless the koreans decide to start playing . My micro is the bigger factor in who wins games, but both contribute, it's how much each one contributes that is again, the grey area. For me, it's effective use of that micro, which I consider strategy, deciding how to use it.

But I'm a hardcore gamer, I used to play for money, my playstyle is more advanced and developed than the casual guy looking for fun, and the problem comes when the casual guy who thinks he should have the advantage comes in against someone like me, and just can't compete, he just gets overwhelmed and doesn't work as efficiently, he lets resources build up, he might build the right counter units, but doesn't micro them to be effective Example: Chasing fighters with flak, the flak leave your LRFs, and the fighters circle around and hit the fighters all the while the flak chase, but never get in range and are useless because of micro, but that micro means I'm not spending my resources while doing it and other stuff like that. When what he would be doing if he was informed and had the apm, is put the flak on hold pos and move them with the rest of your fleet, keeping them circled around it or just inside of it. Making sure they at least get some shots off on the fighters.

I really just think people are confusing what the RTS genre is for, and would enjoy a TBS game more. If you want an incredibly casual but fluid TBS game, then you want an RTS with no overwhelm, and that essentially cuts the game's legs out from under it, that's why there are no RTS titles like that. Sins was marketed as one, but failed to deliver, it's currently in my opinion suffering from the fable complex, a great game in it's own right no one can deny. But simply does not live up to the hype. It's not a problem with ability, or power, or anything like that, they could make a game with attributes like that, but while you guys think it would be fun. It wouldn't be :/

And I'd just like to say one thing, because wc3 wasn't as successful as sc, scII must be bad? That's some awesome logic. I didn't even realize the stupidity of the OP, just reread the post.

And rereading my own, I did come off as hostile, I really did not mean to, just frustration with the topic, your example was fine, the anger wasn't even directed at you. It's just a habit to pick apart posts of the opposing opinion for ammunition, classic strawman if you will.

No problem at all, sir. Your point, I might add, is extremely cogently put. I think I might go and train up (just a little bit ) on my APM count...
Thanks!

Well if I've helped one person play an RTS like an RTS rather than attempting to play one as if it were a TBS and getting frustrated (I used to do just that) than I'm happy. Play the genre how it's meant to be played, and if you want a different gaming experience that is solely dedicated to strategy I really urge people to pick up civ3 (Cheap and imo, better than civ 4, both are fun though) and try out an excellent TBS. Assuming you have the correct hardware, ff tactics, advance wars, civ games, gal civ2, etc, these are all strategy games. Not REAL TIME strategy, but strategy, I implore you guys to understand there is a difference. RTS does not mean TBS with turns at the same time, it adds a new strategic element - Time management.

Anyway, where is everyone, I expected my posts to get a lot more responses they were well put together and took a lot of time to make.

They were well made, and obviously came from inside, not a cut and paste from the latest article in "Great Gamer" ..... or whatever. A pleasant change to read original viewpoints - whether or not I agree.

Dont stop though!

Most people just buy and use a game because they simply enjoy it, I certainly do, few will dig deeper. So dont be surprised at low response rate. Original thoughts are always interesting and read, even if not many respond

Regards
Zy

To point out, I'm going to explain why I love the games I play

I love Star craft because of the storyline. Sure, its game play isn't innovative, but out of everything in the freaking universe, to me, a Story holds a lot of power. If you tell the story right, That game will beat the ever loving shit out of something that has a pathetic story.

I love Warhammer 40k Dawn of War, I admit, yes, this is very biased, And I apologize wholeheartedly to those who get upset at this. The universe is awesome. Chainsaw Galore, hot space elf chicks, Big rampaging demons with an axe the size of mount Rushmore carving things up and kicking tanks to the moon. Yeah, thats fun, why? Because it puts a whole new meaning on "Blowing Shit the Fuck up"

That, and I loved the squad reinforcement and morale system, Instead of mindlessly throwing armies into the fray, you had to use what you had and make damn GOOD use of it.

Sins of a Solar empire is fun because its slow paced, I can get the hang of it easily without having to worry about someone coming and stomping my face in before I can even breath.

Homeworld was fun because it looked downright "Beautiful". I Loved it because It was like staring at a work of art.

I love Supreme Commander because of sheer Variety. Its fun covering your base in shields, then pounding some poor sap halfway across the map with mavor's, or Blanketing an entire map with nukes and watching how much shit blows the fuck up. Thats what Warhammer and Supreme Commander are about, Blowing shit the fuck up and looking damn good while doing it.

I love Shit like Lord of the Rings:Battle For Middle Earth 2 because I just like LOTR. Weird I know, if you think its stupid, thats your cup of tea.

CNC3 I like, mostly because of the Scrin, and the fact that FINALLY GDI nearly gets thoroughly stomped instead of being the gods of ground warfare. That, and it looked beautiful, The fog, the clouds, that looked beautiful, the infantry were a bit on the "Meh" side, but the Annihilators, the vehicles, those were fucking wow.


I admit, I hated WoW. But my reasons are completely different, as someone who has a level 67 NE hunter on WoW. I feel betrayed, See, What the hell is the point in raiding for high grade endgame shit, suddenly a new expansion comes out and renders that useless, thats not innovation, thats irritation.

That, and Because Space MMO's are rare as hell, so are SCI FI MMOs.. Eve online is not my cup of tea, MMO's don't have the charm like Earth and Beyond did, that game's death caused me to shed manly tears on a level I have never achieved again.

Total Annihilation Was fun because "ZOMFG BOOM" "HOLY SHIT BOOM!" Units Galore. Robots blowing each other the fuck up. Oh yes, Blowing something up in a beautiful and spectacular or HOLY FUCKING SHIT inducing manner counts too!.


TBS games are fun, especially the Total War games, those add a combination of TBS and RTS. Which is interesting, You can plan and shit, and then when the action starts you can get right in it and watch the ass kickery commence!


To those people who want to eat my face for this? I don't care. Game sucks to you, it sucks to you. I damn sure love these games. like for the Starcraft Fan's, Earth and Beyond holds a special place in my heart in the MMO department because it was so damn charming, I've never found an MMO with its charm again.


To those who just live to piss people off. "Kiss. My. Ass".

Haeso has many points i agree with. But I will point out that he is a "little" Biased, thats not that much of a problem, since I am too. But mine leans more towards The Warhammer 40k Universe.

Haeso, I absolutely agree with your post about APM being a vital component of competitive RTS gaming. However, the issue isn't that but the scale of the game. Starcraft kept it small by having crap unit AI, and a crap UI scheme. Your say, 80 APM, lets you manage maybe 20-30 units. Who's to say that's the perfect scale and level? You say you used to play competitively. I used to play somewhat seriously as well in TA. I played on TEN and was a top 100 player. Some of our top players(zerbit7 and others) went on to play TA in the CPL later that year. I can tell you that at the highest levels of TA, APM was absolutely a factor, as well as strategy. The game was large and because resources were unlimited you couldn't brute force your way in, not if your opponent was any good. It required a high APM to manage your factories, your resources, your defenses, and your 200 units that you may have split into multiple forces. It's just a larger scale game because the AI and UI took care of the small stuff. We could take it in the opposite direction, we could take the control scheme back to the original Dune 2 level. No grouping, no queueing, and you micro-manage your unit targetting INDIVIDUALLY for each unit. Does that mean Dune 2 is the ultimate competitive RTS? I think not, and I think that it would be damn annoying to play. If you would agree with that, then the way you might feel about the Dune 2 control scheme, is the way I feel about Starcraft's control scheme. I think some of the people saying they might like a little more strategy aren't saying that they want it to be more like a TBS, they just want to have more strategic options and perhaps a larger scale.

Haeso explained things well, there's little to add here.



Nope. The elements are not connected; this can be demonstrated by yet another cliched chess example. You can have a game of chess with five-minute turns or five-second turns, yet all strategic options remain the same. It can be argued that the faster game is too overwhelming to an impractically large amount of players, but then it just becomes a question of finding the "sweet spot" to captivate the largest amount of players. Again, its longevity does a good job of demonstrating that Starcraft managed to hit that sweet spot pretty well.



This is definitely correct to a degree, Starcraft does have repetitive interface actions that could be replaced by simple macros or automation. And, that is the area where progress can be made - these actions could be automated and more meaningful actions could take their place. There are a lot of good arguments about this topic around the net if you care to look.

The failings of WC3 are hopefully understood by Blizzard. I remember reading some comments from Blizzard personnel that the pace of SC2 is much faster than in WC3, and even with smartcasting micro will still be as important (or more important) as in SC1.



Here's a little secret: scale does not necessarily equal strategy. Competitive players will always control as many discrete pieces as they are able. These "pieces" may be individual units, buildings, bases, expansions, or groups of units treated as a single "piece." As long as the game allows benefit from this (=increased efficiency from microing more pieces), scale doesn't matter be it a few dozen individual units (Starcraft) to hundreds (TA/SupCom.)

A larger scale can even be detrimental if a game wants to succeed competitively. A zoomed out view of ant-size units isn't as interesting to look at as a relatively close-in view of nicely presented units with a lot of personality. The better use of scale (better looks without a comparative reduction in strategic options) is one of the edges Starcraft had over TA when considering its success in competitive circles.

Not to mention a huge reason why SC became a spectator sport to quite a large degree, Crandaelon. And while scale is nice and all, I personally would rather have a much higher degree of control over less than a more automated system for controlling masses. And was the 80 an example? Or is that the APM you think SC actually required? Most players in SC at high end had well over 200.

Regardless, I'd rather have exact micro on a smaller scale than a game that plays itself for me sup com and TA both got old real fast for me, the game relied on scale and automation instead of true microing of units, sure apm still mattered. But it just wasn't even close to the same level. I want to have absolutely full control of my units, autocasts are nice when I'm mopping people up and being lazy towards the end of a game I know I've won, but other than that it's boring.

It (Starcraft 2) will not uphold the sinister atmosphere that the Starcraft characters/units had, but it looks more like it is aiming for something in style with WoW (in character and environment design). Alone that is a major (M-A-J-O-R) step away from the Starcraft universe, and a failure, in my eyes as a Starcraft fan. !!!