I am also saying that people often miss the supply side of an equation when talking about supply and demand. We dont know if people would like turn based because nobody ever makes them outside of the grade B gaming world
It's been tried and tested. Goes over very well in Japan, and did ok in NA. EU has a lot of turn-based titles, and they recently got a treat in the form of the latest Dragon Quest game, where it sold exceptionally well, indicating that there is a decent market for it there, as well.
Basically, we already know that turn-based CRPGs sell well in Japan and the EU, but unless it says 'Final Fantasy' on the box probably won't do well in NA.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The statement isn't ironic at all. Players in Turn Based Strategy games do the same thing. It's easier to spot the flaws in the system because it unrolls slower, but that doesn't mean the same flaws aren't there.
Besides, the relative merits of games as RTS or TBS is a subjective opinion. Some people like TBS, some people like RTS. The relative quality of each system isn't a universal property though...it depends on each individual who's participating in the system.
The basic point you are making is that the large majority of top down stradegy games are in real time because its better way to play it otherwise it would not be the majority. I am saying that in my view top down turn based stradegy games are considerable better than a real time approach because I have played them both and the differences in experience are radical. I am also saying that people often miss the supply side of an equation when talking about supply and demand. We dont know if people would like turn based because nobody ever makes them outside of the grade B gaming world
That's not my point at all. If it was, I would have said, "RTS games sell much better per game than their TBS counterparts." I intentionally avoided saying that because then you get into the whole thing where selling more = better and McDonald's would get brought up. It's a pointless discussion. It doesn't bring up the relative merits of Turn Based games versus Real Time games at all.
My first point is that the type of PvP or Combat has to fit the game itself. Turn Based PvP makes sense in some games, while Action PvP makes sense in others. I used the original Doom FPS as an example because it's so obvious that a Turn Based combat system wouldn't work. If you created a Doom RPG (which someone did) and the game is more or less turn based, then the Turn Based combat fits perfectly. There are games which are hybrids of Real Time and Turn Based where most of the game action is Real Time, but the Combat is Turn Based. The old D&D games were kind of like this.
My second point is that the strategy in action combat gets minimized by the players. They have nothing but time, and a lot of them are pretty smart, so they work around any built in roadblocks to immediate success. If a developer thinks that the players are just going to circumvent any built in strategy mechanics, they may not write them in there in the first place.
* edit * Heavily edited for clarity.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
aside from the famous quote from Sun Tzu 'the good wars are the wars that are won before the begin'. Its important to note that RTS is about building (growing) your army and resources. The fate of an RTS game is often decided before the battles begin is it not?
Why would that not translate into the exact same version for MMORPG? you are playing the little solider and you are getting stronger and increasing in your ranks just as the RTS player is gathering resources to get more scouts and more buildings.
RTS games are fun because in a 50 min game you're making a large variety of important decisions which all feed into whether you win or lose.
A single soldier in a single RTS battle has no fun and makes almost zero interesting decisions during the course of that battle. So we can't really pretend it would be fun or interesting to play that soldier's role in a particular battle. It's not fun for that soldier. That soldier doesn't get a complete game.
You've obviously never heard of SAVAGE or SAVAGE 2.
The game where players ARE the RTS single soldiers, while another player is the RTS commander.
Actually Savage 1/2 are exactly what I don't want to see in a game mixing strategy elements into its gameplay. The gameplay for 'soldiers' in those games was actually kinda cruddy.
Natural Selection, on the other hand, was a far better RTS/FPS hybrid. Mostly because the soldier gameplay in that game was more of a full game unto itself. But even then, it was the RTS limitations (you needed a commander to drop heavy armor to "change class" as marine) that caused me to prefer the Combat mode over Standard (a further testament to the fun of the soldier mode on its own.)
And I suppose this is me conceding that you're right to a degree -- but basically you need to start from that "soldier" gameplay already being really damn fun, and then layer the strategy/resource stuff on top of it. Too many games (like Savage) think that simply being RTS/FPS hybrid is enough.
And you still have to obey the short (~50 min) play session limit if you want to create the same density of interesting decisions that exists in an RTS game (otherwise you dilute it out, and the strategy side of your game will taste flat.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I always thought the commander was the weakest aspect of Savage 1 / 2 and Natural Selection. It sounded a new and exciting ideabut the more I played the more I didn't like it. In an organized clanmatch? -Why not. In a public game? -Hell no.
I also think that one of the best, and underappreciated FPS mods was Gloom made for Quake 2. It is basically the same as Natural Selection. I wouldn't be surprised if NS was originally inspired by Gloom. In Q2: Gloom there was no commander, but people could spawn as a "breeder" for aliens or "engineer" for the humans.
These guys would then build turrets, obstacles, mines, and all kinds of defense and support for the rest, and one could switch into and out of a breeder/engineer whenever the situation required it. I always thought this kind of co-operative managing of the base was much better than "the commander" and didn't rely on just one player. Too many times in public games that commander was the difference between losing or winning.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Lately all PvP can offer is a quick fight that mostly determined on who started. I know I oversimplifying things but hey why didn't the industry go the strategic PvP path? It would definitely be more epic and would allow us to think and cooperate much better with our team.
GW2 has some cool ability combinations between players but still combat is planned to be quick. So why did the industry seem to be so non-innovative? What could make PvP combat last longer and more interesting?
Strategy is, for example: "you can lose each and every battle of a war, but still win the war".
That is, for example, how the war of independence worked out for the USA.
I right now totally fail to see a way to make such a thing workable in game PvP events.
It's possible that is because you are thinking in terms of arenas and static combat. Shadowbane and EVE Online are two MMOs with long histories of amazing strategies executed in the pursuit of World Domination. The two most important ingriedients for strategic gameplay are 1) guild/clan controllable resources 2) the ability for someone to take that away. The former is avoided by developers to the point that even housing itself is absent from most new MMOs. The latter is an unspeakable horror to most MMO gamers - what's theirs is theirs and no one can take that away.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I am also saying that people often miss the supply side of an equation when talking about supply and demand. We dont know if people would like turn based because nobody ever makes them outside of the grade B gaming world
It's been tried and tested. Goes over very well in Japan, and did ok in NA. EU has a lot of turn-based titles, and they recently got a treat in the form of the latest Dragon Quest game, where it sold exceptionally well, indicating that there is a decent market for it there, as well.
Basically, we already know that turn-based CRPGs sell well in Japan and the EU, but unless it says 'Final Fantasy' on the box probably won't do well in NA.
I cant speak to other countries but here in the US I know very very very few players who even fully understand what I mean when I say turned based.
Turned based stradegy game vs real time stradegy game is radically different an in my view turned based is EXTREEMLY better.
Silent Storm is a perfect example of a perfect tactical turned based game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
aside from the famous quote from Sun Tzu 'the good wars are the wars that are won before the begin'. Its important to note that RTS is about building (growing) your army and resources. The fate of an RTS game is often decided before the battles begin is it not?
Why would that not translate into the exact same version for MMORPG? you are playing the little solider and you are getting stronger and increasing in your ranks just as the RTS player is gathering resources to get more scouts and more buildings.
Sun Tzu also wrote that ideal wars are those which are won without bloodshed. That would work in an economy simulator but it would not make very interesting PvP in a typical MMORPG setting
Like Axehilt hinted, when the battle is predetermined why even bother?
The ironic thing is that pre-determined is actually how all RTS games work. Its not the actual battle that is game, its the building of your army and positioning your assets where you think are best. Then when you say engage the outcome of that battle is the answer to 'did i get enough of X, did I place X in the right locations?'
What I find intresting about that type of game is that its very nature is slow based, its a perfectly designed system for turn based, not real time.
Stradgey = turn based
Tactics = real time
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I am also saying that people often miss the supply side of an equation when talking about supply and demand. We dont know if people would like turn based because nobody ever makes them outside of the grade B gaming world
It's been tried and tested. Goes over very well in Japan, and did ok in NA. EU has a lot of turn-based titles, and they recently got a treat in the form of the latest Dragon Quest game, where it sold exceptionally well, indicating that there is a decent market for it there, as well.
Basically, we already know that turn-based CRPGs sell well in Japan and the EU, but unless it says 'Final Fantasy' on the box probably won't do well in NA.
I cant speak to other countries but here in the US I know very very very few players who even fully understand what I mean when I say turned based.
Turned based stradegy game vs real time stradegy game is radically different an in my view turned based is EXTREEMLY better.
Silent Storm is a perfect example of a perfect tactical turned based game
You're preaaching to the choir. Turn-based started to become a real hard sell in NA as early as 2001. Right now you'd have about as much luck selling turn-based MMOs as you would point-n-click movement here. The exception would be a TCG or other system far removed from the comfort zone of what the average MMO gamer wants in his standard fantasy MMO.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I am also saying that people often miss the supply side of an equation when talking about supply and demand. We dont know if people would like turn based because nobody ever makes them outside of the grade B gaming world
It's been tried and tested. Goes over very well in Japan, and did ok in NA. EU has a lot of turn-based titles, and they recently got a treat in the form of the latest Dragon Quest game, where it sold exceptionally well, indicating that there is a decent market for it there, as well.
Basically, we already know that turn-based CRPGs sell well in Japan and the EU, but unless it says 'Final Fantasy' on the box probably won't do well in NA.
I cant speak to other countries but here in the US I know very very very few players who even fully understand what I mean when I say turned based.
Turned based stradegy game vs real time stradegy game is radically different an in my view turned based is EXTREEMLY better.
Silent Storm is a perfect example of a perfect tactical turned based game
You're preaaching to the choir. Turn-based started to become a real hard sell in NA as early as 2001. Right now you'd have about as much luck selling turn-based MMOs as you would point-n-click movement here. The exception would be a TCG or other system far removed from the comfort zone of what the average MMO gamer wants in his standard fantasy MMO.
I think the debate resides in the question of is it supply or is it demand. I think its a bit of both but more supply than people give credit too. Its amazing how an entire industry can mold consumers by controlling the supply chain.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I belive that major issue is how current generation of players care about just killing, nothing else... So in reality no one would follow the plan, and most effective might be pure zerg rush...
I believe that is the problem as well. This new generation of players came up on FPS games. It is the ADD generation.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
This thread sounds like the media as if games are murder simulations. People who have played violent games their whole life are scared to death of real guns and would never hurt a fly.
For just once, I'd like to out-think my opponent to win in an online PVP game, instead of grind my way to victory.
If you're talking on a smaller scale, one on one battles, or two on two or whatever, most encounters are generally more tactical in nature.
Maybe you're confusing strategy with tactics? I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, when you're saying you want strategy. That's generally much more long term, applying to very large scale battles. The duration of an individual fight has little to do with that.
When people talk about strategy in MMORPGs I pretty much consider EVE to be the only real example. When you are controlling territory in nullspace it is very much about troop movements, resource management and politics.
Most other PvP MMORPGs are very tactical where you are given a basic objective and try to attack and take it.
Unfortunately Eve Online is a gigantic grind, also new players can't compete against those who have been subscribed to the game longer.
That illustrates my point perfectly. The original Doom FPS game had nothing in it that would lend itself to a turn based combat system. However, if you rework the game mechanics so that it's not a fps but instead a turn based rpg or a turn based game like Rogue, then turn based combat makes sense. It fits the context of the game and brings the player more into the game.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with turn based combat at all. I just think it needs to fit the game you want to put it in.
I think active combat has the problem of balance and players finding the best way to burn through other players. Players are really good at turning a slow, strategic combat system into a fast, tricky way to win in a very short period of time.
What is ironic about this statment is that turned based stradgey war games are so amazingly better than the 'RTS' multitastking nightmare that they are today that its not even funny. In short, they are actually making real time into games that actually better not as real time. I left RTS a long time ago because of this fact actually
I was recently talked into buying Starcraft 2. The games are so fast you have to smoke crack to be able to keep up with everyone. Stupid click fest with no thinking involved.
I always thought the commander was the weakest aspect of Savage 1 / 2 and Natural Selection. It sounded a new and exciting ideabut the more I played the more I didn't like it. In an organized clanmatch? -Why not. In a public game? -Hell no.
I also think that one of the best, and underappreciated FPS mods was Gloom made for Quake 2. It is basically the same as Natural Selection. I wouldn't be surprised if NS was originally inspired by Gloom. In Q2: Gloom there was no commander, but people could spawn as a "breeder" for aliens or "engineer" for the humans.
These guys would then build turrets, obstacles, mines, and all kinds of defense and support for the rest, and one could switch into and out of a breeder/engineer whenever the situation required it. I always thought this kind of co-operative managing of the base was much better than "the commander" and didn't rely on just one player. Too many times in public games that commander was the difference between losing or winning.
The commander in BF2142 was awesome.
I loved playing as the Commander, and that was entirely on a mini-map and that's it.
That illustrates my point perfectly. The original Doom FPS game had nothing in it that would lend itself to a turn based combat system. However, if you rework the game mechanics so that it's not a fps but instead a turn based rpg or a turn based game like Rogue, then turn based combat makes sense. It fits the context of the game and brings the player more into the game.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with turn based combat at all. I just think it needs to fit the game you want to put it in.
I think active combat has the problem of balance and players finding the best way to burn through other players. Players are really good at turning a slow, strategic combat system into a fast, tricky way to win in a very short period of time.
What is ironic about this statment is that turned based stradgey war games are so amazingly better than the 'RTS' multitastking nightmare that they are today that its not even funny. In short, they are actually making real time into games that actually better not as real time. I left RTS a long time ago because of this fact actually
I was recently talked into buying Starcraft 2. The games are so fast you have to smoke crack to be able to keep up with everyone. Stupid click fest with no thinking involved.
I was recently talked into buying Starcraft 2. The games are so fast you have to smoke crack to be able to keep up with everyone. Stupid click fest with no thinking involved.
I think watching professional Korean Starcraft players is a really wonderful example of that.
I remember watching a video where they were talking about how you have to be able to complete at least 300 APM in order to be top-tier competitive. I actually saw videos of the player's hands, left and right... it's ridiculous.
That's 300 actions per MINUTE. I'm lucky if I can do 3 per minute, haha.
I stopped playing SC2 because I just couldn't get into the whole build order thing. You have to be so ridiculously precise, down to the seconds, and being behind 10-15 seconds in build order can crush you later on.
I was recently talked into buying Starcraft 2. The games are so fast you have to smoke crack to be able to keep up with everyone. Stupid click fest with no thinking involved.
I think watching professional Korean Starcraft players is a really wonderful example of that.
I remember watching a video where they were talking about how you have to be able to complete at least 300 APM in order to be top-tier competitive. I actually saw videos of the player's hands, left and right... it's ridiculous.
That's 300 actions per MINUTE. I'm lucky if I can do 3 per minute, haha.
I stopped playing SC2 because I just couldn't get into the whole build order thing. You have to be so ridiculously precise, down to the seconds, and being behind 10-15 seconds in build order can crush you later on.
Well at the very least the developers could have put an option for ladder games:
-Crack smoking speed
-High Speed
-Medium Speed
-Alcoholism speed
I asked for this at Blizzard's forums but didn't get much of a response from anyone, it was like nobody was taking me seriously.
The ironic thing is that pre-determined is actually how all RTS games work. Its not the actual battle that is game, its the building of your army and positioning your assets where you think are best. Then when you say engage the outcome of that battle is the answer to 'did i get enough of X, did I place X in the right locations?'
That's not really pre-determined in the way I typically use the term. Pre-determined would be starting a game, being a level 60 zerg player and receiving +300% hp on my units, and winning without effort.
Calling a single RTS battle "pre-determined" is about as useful as saying it's "pre-determined" that a priest will take lots of damage after the rogue vanishes to stun-lock with his teammate, after the prior 2 minutes of the fight were spent CC'ing the other enemy and making the priest burn all his cooldowns. Yeah, the priest is about to take a bunch of damage -- that's "pre-determined" -- but the entire battle is still left up to whoever plays best (assuming equal gear.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I was recently talked into buying Starcraft 2. The games are so fast you have to smoke crack to be able to keep up with everyone. Stupid click fest with no thinking involved.
To say "no thinking" is to fail to understand high level RTS play. Tons of strategy and tactics go into a typical high-level game, and I watch replays all the time where the 75apm guy beats the 150apm guy.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
It's been tried and tested. Goes over very well in Japan, and did ok in NA. EU has a lot of turn-based titles, and they recently got a treat in the form of the latest Dragon Quest game, where it sold exceptionally well, indicating that there is a decent market for it there, as well.
Basically, we already know that turn-based CRPGs sell well in Japan and the EU, but unless it says 'Final Fantasy' on the box probably won't do well in NA.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That's not my point at all. If it was, I would have said, "RTS games sell much better per game than their TBS counterparts." I intentionally avoided saying that because then you get into the whole thing where selling more = better and McDonald's would get brought up. It's a pointless discussion. It doesn't bring up the relative merits of Turn Based games versus Real Time games at all.
My first point is that the type of PvP or Combat has to fit the game itself. Turn Based PvP makes sense in some games, while Action PvP makes sense in others. I used the original Doom FPS as an example because it's so obvious that a Turn Based combat system wouldn't work. If you created a Doom RPG (which someone did) and the game is more or less turn based, then the Turn Based combat fits perfectly. There are games which are hybrids of Real Time and Turn Based where most of the game action is Real Time, but the Combat is Turn Based. The old D&D games were kind of like this.
My second point is that the strategy in action combat gets minimized by the players. They have nothing but time, and a lot of them are pretty smart, so they work around any built in roadblocks to immediate success. If a developer thinks that the players are just going to circumvent any built in strategy mechanics, they may not write them in there in the first place.
* edit * Heavily edited for clarity.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
People are confusing Strategy with Tactics.
Strategy is large scale, think armies, divisions, regiments, or long term, months, weeks, days.
Tactics is small scale, individual, squad, platoon, and company level. Or in the short term, like in the next minute, or hour.
So much crap, so little quality.
Actually Savage 1/2 are exactly what I don't want to see in a game mixing strategy elements into its gameplay. The gameplay for 'soldiers' in those games was actually kinda cruddy.
Natural Selection, on the other hand, was a far better RTS/FPS hybrid. Mostly because the soldier gameplay in that game was more of a full game unto itself. But even then, it was the RTS limitations (you needed a commander to drop heavy armor to "change class" as marine) that caused me to prefer the Combat mode over Standard (a further testament to the fun of the soldier mode on its own.)
And I suppose this is me conceding that you're right to a degree -- but basically you need to start from that "soldier" gameplay already being really damn fun, and then layer the strategy/resource stuff on top of it. Too many games (like Savage) think that simply being RTS/FPS hybrid is enough.
And you still have to obey the short (~50 min) play session limit if you want to create the same density of interesting decisions that exists in an RTS game (otherwise you dilute it out, and the strategy side of your game will taste flat.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I always thought the commander was the weakest aspect of Savage 1 / 2 and Natural Selection. It sounded a new and exciting ideabut the more I played the more I didn't like it. In an organized clanmatch? -Why not. In a public game? -Hell no.
I also think that one of the best, and underappreciated FPS mods was Gloom made for Quake 2. It is basically the same as Natural Selection. I wouldn't be surprised if NS was originally inspired by Gloom. In Q2: Gloom there was no commander, but people could spawn as a "breeder" for aliens or "engineer" for the humans.
These guys would then build turrets, obstacles, mines, and all kinds of defense and support for the rest, and one could switch into and out of a breeder/engineer whenever the situation required it. I always thought this kind of co-operative managing of the base was much better than "the commander" and didn't rely on just one player. Too many times in public games that commander was the difference between losing or winning.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Uh, strategy ?
Strategy is, for example: "you can lose each and every battle of a war, but still win the war".
That is, for example, how the war of independence worked out for the USA.
I right now totally fail to see a way to make such a thing workable in game PvP events.
darkfall
dc universe
bloodline champions (not a mmo)
age of conan
mortal online
all have stragetic pvp especially darkfall
It's possible that is because you are thinking in terms of arenas and static combat. Shadowbane and EVE Online are two MMOs with long histories of amazing strategies executed in the pursuit of World Domination. The two most important ingriedients for strategic gameplay are 1) guild/clan controllable resources 2) the ability for someone to take that away. The former is avoided by developers to the point that even housing itself is absent from most new MMOs. The latter is an unspeakable horror to most MMO gamers - what's theirs is theirs and no one can take that away.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I cant speak to other countries but here in the US I know very very very few players who even fully understand what I mean when I say turned based.
Turned based stradegy game vs real time stradegy game is radically different an in my view turned based is EXTREEMLY better.
Silent Storm is a perfect example of a perfect tactical turned based game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The ironic thing is that pre-determined is actually how all RTS games work. Its not the actual battle that is game, its the building of your army and positioning your assets where you think are best. Then when you say engage the outcome of that battle is the answer to 'did i get enough of X, did I place X in the right locations?'
What I find intresting about that type of game is that its very nature is slow based, its a perfectly designed system for turn based, not real time.
Stradgey = turn based
Tactics = real time
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You're preaaching to the choir.
Turn-based started to become a real hard sell in NA as early as 2001. Right now you'd have about as much luck selling turn-based MMOs as you would point-n-click movement here. The exception would be a TCG or other system far removed from the comfort zone of what the average MMO gamer wants in his standard fantasy MMO.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think the debate resides in the question of is it supply or is it demand. I think its a bit of both but more supply than people give credit too. Its amazing how an entire industry can mold consumers by controlling the supply chain.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
No, there are grand strategy games out there like HOI, that are not turn based.
They always do that.
I believe that is the problem as well. This new generation of players came up on FPS games. It is the ADD generation.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
For just once, I'd like to out-think my opponent to win in an online PVP game, instead of grind my way to victory.
Unfortunately Eve Online is a gigantic grind, also new players can't compete against those who have been subscribed to the game longer.
I was recently talked into buying Starcraft 2. The games are so fast you have to smoke crack to be able to keep up with everyone. Stupid click fest with no thinking involved.
The commander in BF2142 was awesome.
I loved playing as the Commander, and that was entirely on a mini-map and that's it.
Yep!
I was given SC2 for my christmas.
I wish I got ANYTHING else.
I think watching professional Korean Starcraft players is a really wonderful example of that.
I remember watching a video where they were talking about how you have to be able to complete at least 300 APM in order to be top-tier competitive. I actually saw videos of the player's hands, left and right... it's ridiculous.
That's 300 actions per MINUTE. I'm lucky if I can do 3 per minute, haha.
I stopped playing SC2 because I just couldn't get into the whole build order thing. You have to be so ridiculously precise, down to the seconds, and being behind 10-15 seconds in build order can crush you later on.
Well at the very least the developers could have put an option for ladder games:
-Crack smoking speed
-High Speed
-Medium Speed
-Alcoholism speed
I asked for this at Blizzard's forums but didn't get much of a response from anyone, it was like nobody was taking me seriously.
Not that it really matters, but you're both sorta wrong:
Strategy = long-term decisions
Tactics = short-term decisions
Hearts of Iron = RTS (it's pausable and it's grand strategy, but turns flow in real-time.)
Tactics and Strategy both exist, in both RTSes and TBSes.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That's not really pre-determined in the way I typically use the term. Pre-determined would be starting a game, being a level 60 zerg player and receiving +300% hp on my units, and winning without effort.
Calling a single RTS battle "pre-determined" is about as useful as saying it's "pre-determined" that a priest will take lots of damage after the rogue vanishes to stun-lock with his teammate, after the prior 2 minutes of the fight were spent CC'ing the other enemy and making the priest burn all his cooldowns. Yeah, the priest is about to take a bunch of damage -- that's "pre-determined" -- but the entire battle is still left up to whoever plays best (assuming equal gear.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To say "no thinking" is to fail to understand high level RTS play. Tons of strategy and tactics go into a typical high-level game, and I watch replays all the time where the 75apm guy beats the 150apm guy.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver