Why do I hate all Blizzard RTS games so much?

[PieIsAwesome]

sorry buddy, the mechanisms underlying chess are way more complex than starcraft. games in high-level starcraft are won by being able to out-tax your opponents' concentration/dexterity reserves, while games in chess are truly only fought in the mind. analogy fail?

There have been situations where I pulled a win against unfavorable odds using highly-skilled pawn micro.

 

[Taejin]

There have been situations where I pulled a win against unfavorable odds using highly-skilled pawn micro.

just being deliberately obtuse?

 

[MustangSVT]

I don't really care for them either, bit I'm not enough of a jackass to blame the game. Every game isn't supposed to appeal to every person. Starcraft is by far the most popular RTS worldwide, so they're doing something right. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean the game sucks...

In summary: get the fuck over yourself you jack-wagon

you sir, read my mind!

찌찌뽕!

 

[Pia]

sorry buddy, the mechanisms underlying chess are way more complex than starcraft. games in high-level starcraft are won by being able to out-tax your opponents' concentration/dexterity reserves, while games in chess are truly only fought in the mind. analogy fail?

You made an astonishingly thick remark about games (or RTS games?) which you used to put down Sins of a Solar Empire. I took your remark and applied it to another RTS game besides SoaSE (speed chess) to show even more clearly how absurd it is. That's called reductio ad absurdum. Not only did I not make an analogy involving Starcraft - I made no analogy at all.

 

[minmaster]

ouch... lol

 

[Taejin]

You made an astonishingly thick remark about games (or RTS games?) which you used to put down Sins of a Solar Empire. I took your remark and applied it to another RTS game besides SoaSE (speed chess) to show even more clearly how absurd it is. That's called reductio ad absurdum. Not only did I not make an analogy involving Starcraft - I made no analogy at all.

except your remark was completely predicated on a stance I didn't have. So who are you talking to then?

 

[Pia]

I'm talking to you, Taejin. Once again, here's what you said:

(WhipperSnapper) What I meant was, "You can be a very good player relative to the other players if not one of the best players without having to click 300 times per minute." My main point is that the game isn't as clickfest heavy as other RTS games. It would certainly help to be a fast clicker since you could micromanage abilities on some ships but you can do just fine without it.

(Taejin)
if you can be good as everyone else while not having to do very much then its not much of a game, is it?

According to you, if one can be among the best in a game while "not having to do very much", then the game is "not much of a game". "Doing" in the context of WhipperSnapper's post equals performing high volume of actions per time - he uses the terms "clickfest heavy", "having to click 300 times per minute", etc. From your statement it directly follows that any specific game where top players with low execution skill exist is not a good game. That is the stance you professed to have. Did you write one thing and mean another?

Of course it's possible I have misread or -interpreted something. If that were the case, you should have no trouble showing exactly what my mistake is and - more importantly - explaining how your response to WhipperSnapper is correctly interpreted.

 

[Taejin]

I'm talking to you, Taejin. Once again, here's what you said:


According to you, if one can be among the best in a game while "not having to do very much", then the game is "not much of a game". "Doing" in the context of WhipperSnapper's post equals performing high volume of actions per time - he uses the terms "clickfest heavy", "having to click 300 times per minute", etc. From your statement it directly follows that any specific game where top players with low execution skill exist is not a good game. That is the stance you professed to have. Did you write one thing and mean another?

Of course it's possible I have misread or -interpreted something. If that were the case, you should have no trouble showing exactly what my mistake is and - more importantly - explaining how your response to WhipperSnapper is correctly interpreted.

opposite of not having to do very much != lots of fast clicking. If you had even read the entirety of the thread you would have seen I'm not an advocate of clicking-only. You're taking a very black and white view of the argument, without the grey. Someone who is so willing to quote latin should be able to do better, no?

I also take issue with your point that chess is analogous to RTS games, which is why I commented as I did.

 

[Sahakiel]

To put it simply, RTS is a misnomer for games like Starcraft (and pretty much every other RTS title). Micromanagement isn't strategy, it's tactics, and that's what turns off most casual players. Strategy applies to large scale, army-level actions. Micromanagement is squad/unit level, which lands squarely within the realm of tactics. Most players can't understand the difference, having been "raised" with RTS's that all require a large amount of micromanaging simply because the AI is too simplistic to handle complex behavior on its own.
The hardcore players view it as basic foundation, "learn2play," and don't have a problem with requiring a certain number of actions per minute just to be competitive. Hardcore implies a lot of time and effort put into the game, which means they've had enough practice to very quickly execute actions and sit around idle if there wasn't any micromanagement required.

The general conclusion is that for gamers like me, I hate micromanagement. I don't like having to sit around executing the same type of actions multiple times because the A.I. is too stupid to remember what I want it do to. I don't want to spend half my time in a fight making sure units stay in formation, don't chase while the rest of your "squad" (I use the term loosely for Starcraft) stands by and watches you run off alone, don't block the units behind them, retreat to the rear without blocking, etc. It's quite absurd that if I want to retreat a single front line unit out of 10, I have to manually order 2-4 units to get out of the way so that one guy can make it through the lines because those 2-4 units are too busy shooting at the enemy to move. That's not strategy, that's not even tactical management, that's babysitting.

In essence, I want to train my units. In a strategy war game, I want to be able to actually customize unit behavior to the point where I can send them out to fight, turn my attention elsewhere, come back, and see they all executed actions as if I did micromanage them. I want to be able to send them out, get up to refill my coffee, then come back and see a message log full of pleas for help because the guys I just sent out encountered a larger force and need backup (and are probably now all dead, trying to hold out until help arrived). I want to send scouts and get a report back in a few minutes on what they saw, not keep centering the screen on them just so I can see the terrain as they pass by. I want to focus on strategy, including resources and supply lines, including terrain, cover, sun position, all that fun stuff, without the babysitting.
That's why I don't play Starcraft 2 or really any current RTS for that matter. I'm simply not a member of the target demographic.

 

[Dumac]

To put it simply, RTS is a misnomer for games like Starcraft (and pretty much every other RTS title). Micromanagement isn't strategy, it's tactics, and that's what turns off most casual players. Strategy applies to large scale, army-level actions. Micromanagement is squad/unit level, which lands squarely within the realm of tactics. Most players can't understand the difference, having been "raised" with RTS's that all require a large amount of micromanaging simply because the AI is too simplistic to handle complex behavior on its own.

I have horrible micro. My APM is around 40, sometimes 50, yet I can still compete on diamond level from STRATEGY ALONE

The largest part of Starcraft is not micro. When people are researching their opponents in tourneys, they aren't researching their micro abilities, but their overall strategies. While micro can definately be handy, I would say overall strategy and macro is way more influential in winning.

The general conclusion is that for gamers like me, I hate micromanagement. I don't like having to sit around executing the same type of actions multiple times because the A.I. is too stupid to remember what I want it do to.

You never have to do this, EVER. The only time a unit can't complete your command is when it is impossible for him to do so, which is your fault. You never have to repeat actions to units multiple times.

I don't want to spend half my time in a fight making sure units stay in formation, don't chase while the rest of your "squad" (I use the term loosely for Starcraft) stands by and watches you run off alone, don't block the units behind them, retreat to the rear without blocking, etc. It's quite absurd that if I want to retreat a single front line unit out of 10, I have to manually order 2-4 units to get out of the way so that one guy can make it through the lines because those 2-4 units are too busy shooting at the enemy to move. That's not strategy, that's not even tactical management, that's babysitting.

We get it. You don't like tactics. However, a great strategy is made up of many tactics. With your simple, casual mode of play, you can't accentuate your strategy with tactics like flanking, pincer attack, harassment, etc. You would just have units duke it out and greater numbers win.

And you can probably get away with that. Just go for a macro style of play, have more units than the enemy, and win with brute force, micromanagement be damned.

Honestly, people keep stressing Starcraft 2 APM from a dexterity standpoint, but that's not the hard part. It isn't hard to memorize hotkeys and press buttons quickly. It's the THINKING quickly that is really hard. When players get overwhelmed, it isn't because they physically can't handle it. Honestly, I believe most of the time they just can't think and adapt fast enough to the situation at hand.

 

[BoberFett]

Dumac, you sound butthurt that not everybody is groveling at Blizzard's feet.

 

[Sahakiel]

I have horrible micro. My APM is around 40, sometimes 50, yet I can still compete on diamond level from STRATEGY ALONE

The largest part of Starcraft is not micro. When people are researching their opponents in tourneys, they aren't researching their micro abilities, but their overall strategies. While micro can definately be handy, I would say overall strategy and macro is way more influential in winning.

Not surprisingly, I would disagree. In order to be competitive, you have to micromanage. It's a basic foundation. Just because you don't focus on practicing micro doesn't mean it's not a fundamental part of the gameplay.
When people watch other videos, I don't expect them to watch micromanagement techniques. That's like watching videos of a pro quarterback and watching how he holds the football. Yeah, you might look a few times if it's significantly different, but if you're rewatching the video multiple times it's to study other aspects of his gameplay. Ball-holding is a fundamental basic and requires no extra study.

By the way, 40 actions per minute is basically a button press or click every 1.5 seconds or less on average. Physically, it's not hard record a button press every half a second or so in the middle of a firefight. The basic problem is why is there so much activity in the first place. The reason is micromanagement. You're flipping between managing your fighting units and making sure the rest of your army and base are still functioning properly.
Maintaining average action per minute in the high 30's to 50's or more is fun only to those suffering from A.D.D. or who enjoy frantic pacing. The rest of us prefer to enjoy the game.

You never have to do this, EVER. The only time a unit can't complete your command is when it is impossible for him to do so, which is your fault. You never have to repeat actions to units multiple times.

I had to do it quite often during the campaign. The most common situation is a group of 10-20 marines/medics since that's what you're usually stuck with early each game where the medics are either stuck in front of the firing line or trying to heal someone on the other side of the clump. The marines don't move, because they're shooting, so you have to manually order each one to move out of the way or move the entire squad as a single unit. It's not my fault I want to save the marine in front, but his buddies are too stupid to stop firing and move over one square.
Oh, I understand, now. In your opinion, I'm just supposed to let him die.

The multiple actions comment refers to moving units one at a time. For example, we go back to the marine/medic squad and this time, we're attacking a target, but a few marines are taking too much damage. I want to save a couple, or at least let them live a few seconds longer so they can get off one more shot before dying. The idea being to spread out damage so I don't slowly lose firepower, even if the entire squad is wiped out in about the same amount of time. I'd rather lose the entire squad at once at the end than one unit at a time.
So, I move that one marine to the back, only, hey, again, his buddies are dumb schmucks who care more about shooting that getting out of the way. As a result, I must manually move each marine in his path instead of the whole line shuffling automatically. Odds are, unless you're significantly outnumbered, a couple marines might shuffle to get into firing range as enemy units die and fill in that nice hole you made for your poor injured marine. Well, guess, what, you're back to telling those marines to get the hell out of the way, assuming the marine you're trying to save isn't already dead.

We get it. You don't like tactics. However, a great strategy is made up of many tactics. With your simple, casual mode of play, you can't accentuate your strategy with tactics like flanking, pincer attack, harassment, etc. You would just have units duke it out and greater numbers win.

And you can probably get away with that. Just go for a macro style of play, have more units than the enemy, and win with brute force, micromanagement be damned.

Incorrect. My preferred method of play has the player focusing on such movements, only at the army level rather than squad. Instead of manually ordering your units to execute said maneuvers, you input them and they go off and do it while you turn your attention elsewhere or monitor the results. If I simply wanted the larger army to win, well, I'd play Starcraft and stick to the lower rungs of the ladder where the poor S.O.B's can't build an army as fast as me.
The point isn't that I hate managing individual units. The point is I hate managing them constantly because they're too stupid to do much more than point and shoot. I have almost as much fun at the tactical level if that's all there is to it, a squad and you managing each unit, nothing else on the map. At least until some dumb schmuck does something stupid like block the exit.

Honestly, people keep stressing Starcraft 2 APM from a dexterity standpoint, but that's not the hard part. It isn't hard to memorize hotkeys and press buttons quickly. It's the THINKING quickly that is really hard. When players get overwhelmed, it isn't because they physically can't handle it. Honestly, I believe most of the time they just can't think and adapt fast enough to the situation at hand.

I have never stressed about Starcraft from a dexterity view. Actions per minute is not about dexterity, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. The reason people stress APM at a competitive level is because each action is the result of a thought. It's not as if simply spamming the same button a few times magically produces more results. Each button or click is the result of a decision by the player, most likely independent of the previous. That's why it stresses most players because it's a frantic pace resulting almost entirely out of the need to micromanage your units. You cannot win competitive Starcraft by sending your units out on attack-move.
Instead, that's my preference, and, I think, the preference of many gamers. I would prefer to train my units the way I want them to behave, then send them out without having to babysit. They will attack, defend, retreat, go around, cover each other, whatever I train them to do at the squad level. The overall battle I still manage as the commander. I might have squads winning too often and advancing, but still order them to stop and retreat if I think they will get cut off and decimated. I can still order certain squads to stop holding out and retreat because they're taking too many losses or I want to lure. If I have a squad for harassment, I don't have to manually order them to attack and retreat every single time. I point, they go and harass the area or direction. They focus on the targets I want prioritized and ignore the fodder when they need to. I don't have to tell them to walk around each time they see an enemy unit not worth killing (reveals their location) they do it automatically. They see something, I hear about it, they don't see something I expected, I hear about it. Tactics are automatic, strategy is separate. I want to have harassment units, mobile armor, aerial support, leapfrogging infantry, all the fun stuff, without having to keep switching to each one.
Again, the focus is on strategy, not tactics. Yes, even if you had a human behind each unit you build, you would still need to micromanage once in a while, I understand that and don't abhor it. I simply don't want to keep micromanaging and that is the entire reason why Starcraft is a huge turnoff. I would simply love to command an entire army of human-level intelligent units (albeit with instantaneous learning curves, I don't want to wait that long for training).

 

[imported_Alx]

I don't understand what your beef with the game is, Sahakiel. All RTS games are half tactics, half action, and a pinch of strategy. Advanced strategy is not viable until you get the first two things squared away, because if you can't produce the optimum number of units with your resources or fail to manage them, an inferior strategy will beat you. It has been like this since Dune 2, where you would put your sonic tanks in a line in front of your big tanks one at a time. This is what the genre is. Is it the use of the word 'strategy' that is bothering you enough to write e-novels about why it's not really 'strategy'? Let it go. SC2 is one of the few dynamic, skill based multiplayer games out there.

I disagree with you too, Dumac. Once you start playing people who understand basic SC2 strategies as well as you, it becomes just barely strategic. I play protoss. When I see a mirror, I can assume he's going to 4 warpgate and I don't have a consistent build to beat that back, so I just open up with 4 warpgate too. If one of us mismicros some units in early skirmishes the game doesn't progress beyond that. If I see a terran I just assume he's massing marauders then MMM. I know it, he knows it, and the only "counter" is force fielding the ramp repeatedly. If I miss or mistime one field he's getting through and the game is over. If I can split his force in half I can cut down half his marauders and push back with a 4 gate and possibly win. If the game goes on it will turn into emp vs storm micro battle in most cases. What I'm trying to say is that most games both players know what's going to happen and it comes down to execution (efficient econ, build order, micro) rather than strategy.

 

[BoberFett]

I have never stressed about Starcraft from a dexterity view. Actions per minute is not about dexterity, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. The reason people stress APM at a competitive level is because each action is the result of a thought. It's not as if simply spamming the same button a few times magically produces more results. Each button or click is the result of a decision by the player, most likely independent of the previous. That's why it stresses most players because it's a frantic pace resulting almost entirely out of the need to micromanage your units. You cannot win competitive Starcraft by sending your units out on attack-move.
Instead, that's my preference, and, I think, the preference of many gamers. I would prefer to train my units the way I want them to behave, then send them out without having to babysit. They will attack, defend, retreat, go around, cover each other, whatever I train them to do at the squad level. The overall battle I still manage as the commander. I might have squads winning too often and advancing, but still order them to stop and retreat if I think they will get cut off and decimated. I can still order certain squads to stop holding out and retreat because they're taking too many losses or I want to lure. If I have a squad for harassment, I don't have to manually order them to attack and retreat every single time. I point, they go and harass the area or direction. They focus on the targets I want prioritized and ignore the fodder when they need to. I don't have to tell them to walk around each time they see an enemy unit not worth killing (reveals their location) they do it automatically. They see something, I hear about it, they don't see something I expected, I hear about it. Tactics are automatic, strategy is separate. I want to have harassment units, mobile armor, aerial support, leapfrogging infantry, all the fun stuff, without having to keep switching to each one.
Again, the focus is on strategy, not tactics. Yes, even if you had a human behind each unit you build, you would still need to micromanage once in a while, I understand that and don't abhor it. I simply don't want to keep micromanaging and that is the entire reason why Starcraft is a huge turnoff. I would simply love to command an entire army of human-level intelligent units (albeit with instantaneous learning curves, I don't want to wait that long for training).

You nailed it for me. I want to tell a squad "Take that hill." And if my squad is better balanced for that action than the squad defending it, they can figure out how to do it on their own.

I do not want to have to tell a squad "Step around the rock instead of shooting into it. No, don't stand out in the open, take cover behind a tree when someone is shooting at you. No, don't run a mile out of your way just because your buddy is standing still in the chokepoint like a moron."

These games need to get smart enough to allow a person to truly play from a battlefield perspective so you don't have to babysit every unit on the board.

 

[Glitchny]

You nailed it for me. I want to tell a squad "Take that hill." And if my squad is better balanced for that action than the squad defending it, they can figure out how to do it on their own.

I do not want to have to tell a squad "Step around the rock instead of shooting into it. No, don't stand out in the open, take cover behind a tree when someone is shooting at you. No, don't run a mile out of your way just because your buddy is standing still in the chokepoint like a moron."

These games need to get smart enough to allow a person to truly play from a battlefield perspective so you don't have to babysit every unit on the board.

some people like controlling individual units. I'd hate a game with the type of game play you describe, I'd much rather my reactions and micromanagement of units play a larger role than my unit composition. Ordering a squad to take a hill and then watching the AI play seems boring to me.

 

[Dumac]

Dumac, you sound butthurt that not everybody is groveling at Blizzard's feet.

I'm one of the biggest Blizzard critics. I hate WoW, made a lot of complaints on Starcraft, and am very skeptical about Diablo 3 since everyone left at Blizzard is from WoW.

I don't care if people don't enjoy Starcraft. I just want them to come up with better reasons for not enjoying it, so I like discussing with people about why they don't enjoy it.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm one of the biggest Blizzard critics. I hate WoW, made a lot of complaints on Starcraft, and am very skeptical about Diablo 3 since everyone left at Blizzard is from WoW.

I don't care if people don't enjoy Starcraft. I just want them to come up with better reasons for not enjoying it, so I like discussing with people about why they don't enjoy it.

Better reasons? People like different colors too. There aren't better or worse reasons, they just like what they like.

As Glitchny just demonstrated, he'd dislike the kind of game I'd like.

 

[ibex333]

I have horrible micro. My APM is around 40, sometimes 50, yet I can still compete on diamond level from STRATEGY ALONE

The largest part of Starcraft is not micro. When people are researching their opponents in tourneys, they aren't researching their micro abilities, but their overall strategies. While micro can definately be handy, I would say overall strategy and macro is way more influential in winning.

You never have to do this, EVER. The only time a unit can't complete your command is when it is impossible for him to do so, which is your fault. You never have to repeat actions to units multiple times.

We get it. You don't like tactics. However, a great strategy is made up of many tactics. With your simple, casual mode of play, you can't accentuate your strategy with tactics like flanking, pincer attack, harassment, etc. You would just have units duke it out and greater numbers win.

And you can probably get away with that. Just go for a macro style of play, have more units than the enemy, and win with brute force, micromanagement be damned.

Honestly, people keep stressing Starcraft 2 APM from a dexterity standpoint, but that's not the hard part. It isn't hard to memorize hotkeys and press buttons quickly. It's the THINKING quickly that is really hard. When players get overwhelmed, it isn't because they physically can't handle it. Honestly, I believe most of the time they just can't think and adapt fast enough to the situation at hand.

You have a unique way of taking cold hard facts and twisting them in such a way where you start sounding like you may just be correct.... Except you are not.


For example, you say that without tactics strategy cant exist or cant exhist effectively, because tactics such as pincer attack, and flanking are very important if not essential. you say this as if the guy you are responding to or somone else doesnt already know this. Well, please stop right there, because that part was OBVIOUS. You dont have to tell us that. WE KNOW. Such tactics were almost always a part of any GOOD strategy.

What we are really trying to tell you,(and you already know this, it's just that you pretend you dont, to support your main points) is that Starcraft 2 puts TOO DAMN MUCH emphasis on micro or small tactics whichever way you want to call it. No one says tactics are not important or that they shouldnt be in an RTS. What I am trying to tell you is that games such as Company of Heroes are much better IMHO as opposed to Starcraft 2 becuase they allow you to concentrate on global things and actually enjoy the game. Think of it as having a choice between being a admiral and an officer. People who play Starcraft 2, have an officer's role. Actually the role of many officers at the same time! This is basically pure grind, where yo have to attend to every little thing and manage every little detail. You may like this type of grinding, if that is the case, good for you.

What I am saying is, games like RUSE are better IMO, becuase there, I am a general watching the map on my big mahogany table, and dealing with the war as a whole, rather than dealing with individual little conflicts.

I refuse to attest this to the fact that I am slow, and that is purely the reason why I hate SC2. I may be slow, but I could LEARN to be faster or better, so this is not the reason I am hating on Starcraft 2. The real reason, like I said already in the OP, is that why in the hell should I study the game like a homework assigment, when I can just play RUSe or CoH and enjoy myself?

And people who told me to get lost because I cant judge the game since I am not in the elitist league.... You couldnt be further from the truth. I am at work atm, but I will deal with you a bit later. Dont you worry!

 

[Pia]

opposite of not having to do very much != lots of fast clicking.

Wrong. Those things are one and the same in the context of WhipperSnapper's post which you were replying to.

If you had even read the entirety of the thread you would have seen I'm not an advocate of clicking-only. You're taking a very black and white view of the argument, without the grey.

The only positions I have taken on this thread concern the quality of your arguments. No idea what the grey is I am supposed to be seeing.

But to cut to the chase, how about you just explain exactly what your initial one-liner post meant? You have both stood by it and claimed I interpreted it wrongly. There's really no point in talking further if you can't be more specific.

I also take issue with your point that chess is analogous to RTS games, which is why I commented as I did.

Not analogous to a RTS game, but an RTS game.
Also, irrelevant. Speed chess is completely exchangeable with any other high skill ceiling, low APM ceiling RTS in my reductio ad absurdum. For that matter, I'm pretty sure speed chess fits any reasonable definition of "RTS" either as is or with rule modifications that only modify the time mechanism and leave the bulk of strategy intact.

 

[imaheadcase]

So i found my true calling in this game. 4vs4! 6wins zero losses so far, it is SO fun.

What i like about 4vs4 than other games, its more of a rush for resource control than just mass piling units to attack. No one has time to concentrate on building up 20+ of the same unit.
Well that and no more lame worker rush, i hope they fix that. A simple destructible rock wall in front of each base at start with like 50hp would fix that. Gives everyone ample opportunity to start out, plus its not a burden.

Platinum level!

I'm sure I rank is not going to last, but its fun to play regardless

 

[Taejin]

Wrong. Those things are one and the same in the context of WhipperSnapper's post which you were replying to.
The only positions I have taken on this thread concern the quality of your arguments. No idea what the grey is I am supposed to be seeing.

But to cut to the chase, how about you just explain exactly what your initial one-liner post meant? You have both stood by it and claimed I interpreted it wrongly. There's really no point in talking further if you can't be more specific.

Not analogous to a RTS game, but an RTS game.
Also, irrelevant. Speed chess is completely exchangeable with any other high skill ceiling, low APM ceiling RTS in my reductio ad absurdum. For that matter, I'm pretty sure speed chess fits any reasonable definition of "RTS" either as is or with rule modifications that only modify the time mechanism and leave the bulk of strategy intact.

uh no
RTS and turn based games are inherently different

 

[evident]

So i found my true calling in this game. 4vs4! 6wins zero losses so far, it is SO fun.

What i like about 4vs4 than other games, its more of a rush for resource control than just mass piling units to attack. No one has time to concentrate on building up 20+ of the same unit.
Well that and no more lame worker rush, i hope they fix that. A simple destructible rock wall in front of each base at start with like 50hp would fix that. Gives everyone ample opportunity to start out, plus its not a burden.

Platinum level!

I'm sure I rank is not going to last, but its fun to play regardless

I've yet to encounter a worker rush. i don't think that would fly in any other leagues besides copper