Grey Goo - Now wobbling on your Hard Drive

[Darth Roxor]

DoW2 that you cited earlier though is very casual and doesn't need very good coordination to handle.

oh my man you have no idea how wrong you are

Looking away for just a moment in dow2 can cost you the game in multiplayer because of the multitude of army-wiping awesome buttons.

 

[Jaedar]

While an RTS need not be supreme clickfest like sc2 to be good (personally I think it detracts), goo was a bit too slow and passive for me. Also not enough cool units and strategies to pull off.

 

[Johannes]

DoW2 that you cited earlier though is very casual and doesn't need very good coordination to handle.

oh my man you have no idea how wrong you are

Looking away for just a moment in dow2 can cost you the game in multiplayer because of the multitude of army-wiping awesome buttons.

Awesome buttons don't make a game mechanically hard, rather the opposite. They're relatively easy to use when you have them.

A game where battles are about properly coordinating several unit types in tandem, on multiple fronts, while managing a complex base at the same time, that's way more "clicky" than pressing on an awesome button. To draw a comparison, MOBAs have awsum abilities just as well.

 

[Darth Roxor]

A game where battles are about properly coordinating several unit types in tandem, on multiple fronts, while managing a complex base at the same time, that's way more "clicky" than pressing on an awesome button.

But apart from managing a complex base that is exactly what dow2 is about. You gotta have eyes all around the battlefield because there are always 2 or 3 places getting besieged, and you always have to micro your melee, ranged, AV, stealth, sniper, support dudes and vehicles at all times + spread them around cover + kite. And then there's also the added micro and awareness requirement because of the awesome buttons - you look away for a second, one of your squads gets exploded by nades. You look away again, some faggot bombs you to fuck and back with manticores. You leave your gens unattended, disco marines are gonna blow them up within seconds and run away. DoW2 is clicky as fuck. To continue from your comparison, it's like playing 3 moba battles in 3 places at the same time, except no units are automated.

 

[Johannes]

A game where battles are about properly coordinating several unit types in tandem, on multiple fronts, while managing a complex base at the same time, that's way more "clicky" than pressing on an awesome button.

But apart from managing a complex base that is exactly what dow2 is about. You gotta have eyes all around the battlefield because there are always 2 or 3 places getting besieged, and you always have to micro your melee, ranged, AV, stealth, sniper, support dudes and vehicles at all times + spread them around cover + kite. And then there's also the added micro and awareness requirement because of the awesome buttons - you look away for a second, one of your squads gets exploded by nades. You look away again, some faggot bombs you to fuck and back with manticores. You leave your gens unattended, disco marines are gonna blow them up within seconds and run away. DoW2 is clicky as fuck. To continue from your comparison, it's like playing 3 moba battles in 3 places at the same time, except no units are automated.

Yes, minus the economy. Even if the micro about as complex as in a bigger-scale RTS, economy's a huge difference - not just in terms of having to plan and manage your resource production and spending, but defending and attacking that resource production, and scouting makes maneuvering have a much larger possibility space than taking over checkpoints.

Or show me a DoW2 player whose play looks anything comparable to this (skip the first 5-10 minutes):


You never get the situation that you have 20 different things lined up you should do, but don't have time fore, in a micro-focused game like DoW2.

 

[Beastro]

Petroglyph and Dalkivar need to join forces to bring us a Black Geyser of Grey Goo.

 

[thesheeep]

Or show me a DoW2 player whose play looks anything comparable to this (skip the first 5-10 minutes):

Spoiler

Okay, yes, that is a clickfest.
I always played the game on normal speed, which required a lot less furious clicking.

But note how a significant part of that is due to having to build freaking farms.
No wonder I hate that manual farming crap. It has nothing to do with strategy or even tactics. There are no decisions to make here.
It's just necessary nonsense that distracts you from the fighting and building part.

 

[Dayyālu]

I'm barely a mediocre player in RTS games, but yeah, AoE2 is one of THE greatest clickfest in the eco building/strategical side. Tactical combat requires also tons of clicking for optimal targeting, and it's quite tiresome.

Not my favourite. Same reason I dislike even competent level Starcraft: it's FPS level of effort required.

No wonder I hate that manual farming crap. It has nothing to do with strategy or even tactics. There are no decisions to make here.
It's just necessary nonsense that distracts you from the fighting and building part.

Eco is pretty much 60% of a succesful AoE2 match. Build faster. Farm position. When to switch from gathered resources to Farms. Optimal expansion. As I said, quite tiresome.

Funnily enough, RA (At least the OpenRA version I'm playing now) is far less clicky than AoE2, thanks to simpler Eco (Energy&Ore/Tiberium) and clear unit roles. Sure, I still get killed/harassed like a pig by Johannes and his superior microing skills, but a clear plan and "strategical" choices can overcome that. RA2 was already far more demanding with the special abilities and the overall powers.

DoW2 MP is bad. Bad bad. Maps are cramped, units die too fast or too slow, and it inherits the worst characteristics of CoH-inspired RTSs (comebacks are almost impossible and tactical microing always wins, pretty much like a MOBA). DoW1 had a balance between tactical microing/quick economy/ building requirements that I liked more.

But yeah, I agree with Roxor. DoW2 is a MOBA-like RTS.

Despite me liking the game a lot, how was TA (and TA-likes, like SupCom) in this regard? Floating resources and automated factories should lessen the load, plus superweapons and big maps would have given an interesting flavour. Sure, TA was unbalanced as hell and optimal strats were obvious, but was it a click fest?

 

[Johannes]

Despite me liking the game a lot, how was TA (and TA-likes, like SupCom) in this regard? Floating resources and automated factories should lessen the load, plus superweapons and big maps would have given an interesting flavour. Sure, TA was unbalanced as hell and optimal strats were obvious, but was it a click fest?

Just as bad as SCBW or AoE2. Micro is a lot harder than it looks like at first, air units you have to constantly babysit if you want proper efficiency. And in ground combat you have to manually make units attack at radar dots, account for wreckages, etc.. In the economy putting up new factories, cons to guard them, remaking killed mexes, microing cons that reclaim wrecks, managing possible metal makers, there's still a shitton of things to do and optimize. Plus of course, there's no pop limit, so take a big enough map and it's the worst.

And even if you streamline the UI hurdles of doing some of this stuff, it doesn't actually make it much less "clicky" necessarily. You just move to managing lower level stuff that is just as complex, but didn't have time to optimize earlier.

There's some TA remakes here, that have all kinds of UI improvements, can even do LUA scripts for unit behavior (though for battle micro that's mostly useless). But it doesn't make the game into not being a clickfest in any sense, even if it shifts the focus a bit. The units are still a lot more micro-able than SupCom for example.

Or show me a DoW2 player whose play looks anything comparable to this (skip the first 5-10 minutes):

Spoiler

Okay, yes, that is a clickfest.
I always played the game on normal speed, which required a lot less furious clicking.

The speed setting doesn't make too much of a difference. I picked that game because it was the first one I saw that he lost in - you can see him go into panic mode in some parts, not sure where to focus on. That's p. different from playing a game where things go as planned and you get to decide the tempo of the game.

The other games on the channel are mostly normal speed, to see what that looks like.

But note how a significant part of that is due to having to build freaking farms.
No wonder I hate that manual farming crap. It has nothing to do with strategy or even tactics. There are no decisions to make here.
It's just necessary nonsense that distracts you from the fighting and building part.

In practice, it does have a lot to do with strategy. Attention is a limited resource, and you have to decide where to spend it, and try and make actions that take the enemy's attention to respond.

For example, you might build a surplus of Wood just so that you spare yourself the trouble of clicking to redo individual farms (and queue them in the Mill instead). It might not be as interesting as an easier to use system, but it does affect the strategies and tactics that you use. Whether that's interesting or not, it affects every part of the game.[/URL]

 

[Aothan]

Even if the micro about as complex as in a bigger-scale RTS, economy's a huge difference - not just in terms of having to plan and manage your resource production and spending, but defending and attacking that resource production, and scouting makes maneuvering have a much larger possibility space than taking over checkpoints.

DoW has a fundamentally different design, the resources and base building as it were are externalised to resource points across the field, this shifts the core gameplay to be primarily orientated on unit engagements and the strategies involved in maintaining control amid the flux of resource and tactical points being lost and gained

we can see in the listed video it is on record mode so the usual gameplay is not evident especially with how units are being 'selected' from the viewers perspective (this is touched upon in the comments on the page), and it is also a much faster game speed, but besides those key differences most of the 'micro' is around base and resource management. Actually I see someone has just mentioned the same observation, so when you say:

Attention is a limited resource, and you have to decide where to spend it, and try and make actions that take the enemy's attention to respond

the difference is that the combat is comparably linear compared to the array of features and abilities that define DoW II's mode of interactions, inasmuch as strategy pertaining to combat, both in battles and long term plans are integral to the depth of games DoW II is just as if not more micro intensive than games that have much simplified combat and shift "attention" to base building aspects of gameplay

 

[Johannes]

Even if the micro about as complex as in a bigger-scale RTS, economy's a huge difference - not just in terms of having to plan and manage your resource production and spending, but defending and attacking that resource production, and scouting makes maneuvering have a much larger possibility space than taking over checkpoints.

DoW has a fundamentally different design, the resources and base building as it were are externalised to resource points across the field, this shifts the core gameplay to be primarily orientated on unit engagements and the strategies involved in maintaining control amid the flux of resource and tactical points being lost and gained

we can see in the listed video it is on record mode so the usual gameplay is not evident especially with how units are being 'selected' from the viewers perspective (this is touched upon in the comments on the page),

No idea what you're babbling about, usual gameplay is clearly evident as if you were watching him play from behind his shoulder.

and it is also a much faster game speed, but besides those key differences most of the 'micro' is around base and resource management. Actually I see someone has just mentioned the same observation, so when you say:

Attention is a limited resource, and you have to decide where to spend it, and try and make actions that take the enemy's attention to respond

the difference is that the combat is comparably linear compared to the array of features and abilities that define DoW II's mode of interactions, inasmuch as strategy pertaining to combat, both in battles and long term plans are integral to the depth of games DoW II is just as if not more micro intensive than games that have much simplified combat and shift "attention" to base building aspects of gameplay

It is more micro-intensive in that there's nothing else in the game. But mechanically the micro is not very demanding at all, AoE2 combat is not any simpler to execute than it even if you had just a single battle to watch. There may be more options to choose from in DoW2 but none of them are very hard mechanically to pull off.

 

[Aothan]

There may be more options to choose from in DoW2 but none of them are very hard mechanically to pull off.

if there are more strategic elements to utilise and effectively apply, then it follows the game's dimensions have more strategic depth in combat. Mechanical aptitude is what primarily underscores a 'clickfest' but does not determine the strategic qualities of a game. However this is overlooking DoW II's design emphasis where on average units have multiple abilities (not just attacks) which are central to how judiciously and effectively different units are used, especially when utilised with other abilities (for instance the Ranger's long range push effect can prove vital to Eldar units reaching the lines before taking too much focus) as with responding to multiple abilities from other armies

we can consider how base building and the likes are not necessary to either fast micro or strategic dimensions, typically both strategy and micro in rts games are fully realised outside of these areas. These aspects are not definitive of strategy, skill or enjoyable gameplay, although certainly rts games that have base building can develop these to be enjoyable, however pointing to a skilled player alternating between base building and unit production does not make the game deeper or more skillful, and especially when compared to games which have a greater emphasis on unit interactions and engagements

most of this emphasis is relevant in a very different type of genre, tbs type games, which can also have different internal game designs but can be fun and strategic nonetheless

 

[ArchAngel]

It makes it harder and because of that more skillful.

 

[Johannes]

There may be more options to choose from in DoW2 but none of them are very hard mechanically to pull off.

if there are more strategic elements to utilise and effectively apply, then it follows the game's dimensions have more strategic depth in combat. Mechanical aptitude is what primarily underscores a 'clickfest' but does not determine the strategic qualities of a game. However this is overlooking DoW II's design emphasis where on average units have multiple abilities (not just attacks) which are central to how judiciously and effectively different units are used, especially when utilised with other abilities (for instance the Ranger's long range push effect can prove vital to Eldar units reaching the lines before taking too much focus) as with responding to multiple abilities from other armies

And what was the discussion about again? People claimed here that AoE is not a "clickfest", and that DoW2 is. And I set the record straight. You're not even disagreeing with me in your first paragraph - DoW2 is not mechanically demanding, AoE's are, and that's the bottom line. I haven't argued at all which of them is more fun or anything like that yet.

we can consider how base building and the likes are not necessary to either fast micro or strategic dimensions, typically both strategy and micro in rts games are fully realised outside of these areas. These aspects are not definitive of strategy, skill or enjoyable gameplay, although certainly rts games that have base building can develop these to be enjoyable, however pointing to a skilled player alternating between base building and unit production does not make the game deeper or more skillful, and especially when compared to games which have a greater emphasis on unit interactions and engagements

most of this emphasis is relevant in a very different type of genre, tbs type games, which can also have different internal game designs but can be fun and strategic nonetheless

Games with a properly fleshed out economy are much more strategically complex than DoW2. A much wider skillset is needed to play a full-fledged RTS than a tactics game like DoW2. A game with a narrower scope can ofc be just as enjoyable, but it's not at all a comparable thing when it comes to strategic complexity or impressive micro.

 

[Aothan]

People claimed here that AoE is not a "clickfest", and that DoW2 is.

no, you said 'all the good rts games are clickfests' and juxtaposed the same with Dow II. And I did explain the key difference in this line of reasoning by comparing DoW II's emphasis on skills and tactics and thus the 'mechanical' requirements in combat compared to AoE

A game with a narrower scope can ofc be just as enjoyable, but it's not at all a comparable thing when it comes to strategic complexity or impressive micro.

the problems here are twofold, you have claimed a game is not as complex if it is not as mechanically demanding, this is not a good definition of strategic content. Furthermore comparisons show this is actually a defining difference between the examples, DoW II has more strategic layers than AoE insofar as the core elements of these games are compared, AoE's unit complexity and thus tactical dimensions are simpler. Showing a player alternate between building and unit production cycles does not make for a strategically complex game, building and unit production cycling are not what determines "strategic complexity" and "impressive micro", you have made the same point with the video where the player loses focuses when player involvement is concerned, and treating these largely actions as the core game misplaces where micro ('clickfests') and strategy are most pronounced

 

[AMG]

building and unit production cycling are not what determines "strategic complexity"

Actually it does. Because your attention is strained, employing tactics that disrupt your opponents attention is a strategic choice not present in games you can play at your own pace.
The goal of dropping units in your opponents base in StarCraft might be economic damage itself or just occupying your opponent so that you can push out into the map while he is not looking. Attention is a resource like everyting else and you yourself wrote that:

if there are more strategic elements to utilise and effectively apply, then it follows the game's dimensions have more strategic depth in combat.

Honestly, the RTS formula doesn't lend itself to creating interesting combat scenarios. Real time and instantaneous resolution of player orders mean that any sophisticated combat maneuvers are all but impossible. The skill (and fun) aspect of RTS combat mostly stems from dexterity and not brain power. Loading your units with abilites doesn't increase strategic options, it just gives you someting to aim or use at correct timing, which is again related to dexterity. Being outraged at the fact that Real Time STRATEGY games are not rife with actual strategy is akin to arguing that RPGs are about playing a role.

Which is why cutting out the base building/economy aspect usually results in shallow and uninteresting games.

Spoiler

like dow2

 

[Aothan]

Actually it does. Because your attention is strained, employing tactics that disrupt your opponents attention is a strategic choice not present in games you can play at your own pace.

it shifts the attention to separate tasks, it does not make the tactics themselves more complex (i.e. difficulty in performing is not equivalent to complexity)

Honestly, the RTS formula doesn't lend itself to creating interesting combat scenarios. Real time and instantaneous resolution of player orders mean that any sophisticated combat maneuvers are all but impossible.... Loading your units with abilites doesn't increase strategic options, it just gives you someting to aim or use at correct timing, which is again related to dexterit

'real time actions cannot be sophisticated' and 'multiplicity of possibilities do not increase complexity' are not accurate statements

 

[Beastro]

'real time actions cannot be sophisticated' and 'multiplicity of possibilities do not increase complexity' are not accurate statements

Time for RTS' and Grand Strategy games to stop allowing you to be God and finally simulate having unit divisions with AI commanders underneath you, restricting you to the higher stuff like building and maybe directly controlling 1 or two armies yourself. That way things can reflect real life commands and avoid you both being overloaded doing everything at one as well as bringing your full human intelligence to bear everywhere as well.

A big part of RL wars is a gifted commander excelling in one place only for incompetent peers to undo that progress by failing in elsewhere.

The thing is, that would allow a game to reign in the most overpowered thing any game has, the human mind, while given more room to the AI and thus giving it's improvement more incentive that would make both game AI better overall, the main area these sorts of games have always suffered in.

 

[Aothan]

restricting you to the higher stuff like building and maybe directly controlling 1 or two armies yourself

one of these tasks require a great deal more strategic skill, which is the purpose of the discussion at hand, especially in mind of key differences between game designs

I am not in anyway saying base building is wrong, as I've enjoyed base building games in my time, but the usual complaints that taking these elements out detract from strategy overlooks intended design and overstates how much these aspects are integral to depth of gameplay

 

[Johannes]

People claimed here that AoE is not a "clickfest", and that DoW2 is.

no, you said 'all the good rts games are clickfests' and juxtaposed the same with Dow II. And I did explain the key difference in this line of reasoning by comparing DoW II's emphasis on skills and tactics and thus the 'mechanical' requirements in combat compared to AoE

A game with a narrower scope can ofc be just as enjoyable, but it's not at all a comparable thing when it comes to strategic complexity or impressive micro.

the problems here are twofold, you have claimed a game is not as complex if it is not as mechanically demanding, this is not a good definition of strategic content. Furthermore comparisons show this is actually a defining difference between the examples, DoW II has more strategic layers than AoE insofar as the core elements of these games are compared, AoE's unit complexity and thus tactical dimensions are simpler. Showing a player alternate between building and unit production cycles does not make for a strategically complex game, building and unit production cycling are not what determines "strategic complexity" and "impressive micro", you have made the same point with the video where the player loses focuses when player involvement is concerned, and treating these largely actions as the core game misplaces where micro ('clickfests') and strategy are most pronounced

Being mechanically hard is of course not a goal in itself. It simply follows from having enough complexity - you never run out of things to do. AoE2 has 4 different resources to collect, multiple ways to collect them, and a big variety of units and technologies to then spend them on. No matter how smooth and intuitive the UI for all that is, it's gonna be hard to optimize all that. So the sensory overload and hard to master mechanics inevitably follows from strategic complexity.

"DoW II has more strategic layers than AoE" Wtf are you smoking? There's barely any strategic layers in DoW2. It's a near pure tactics game.

Honestly, the RTS formula doesn't lend itself to creating interesting combat scenarios. Real time and instantaneous resolution of player orders mean that any sophisticated combat maneuvers are all but impossible. The skill (and fun) aspect of RTS combat mostly stems from dexterity and not brain power.

Not really. Even dexterity stems mostly from brain power - keeping track of all that's happening in the game in parallel. RTS isn't deep down about manual dexterity, but about making split second decisions and judgments, deceiving your enemy, and keeping your cool.

And of course the same shit you get in any TB game as well - when to invest in attack, defense, economy (these three are basically an RPS in any strategy game with an economy), when you bring it down to the fundamental basics. Long term vs. short term investments, scouting the enemy's build and adjusting. And of course then all the nitty gritty details of the particular game that you have to understand.

restricting you to the higher stuff like building and maybe directly controlling 1 or two armies yourself

one of these tasks require a great deal more strategic skill, which is the purpose of the discussion at hand, especially in mind of key differences between game designs

I am not in anyway saying base building is wrong, as I've enjoyed base building games in my time, but the usual complaints that taking these elements out detract from strategy overlooks intended design and overstates how much these aspects are integral to depth of gameplay

Base building takes more strategic skill.

When, where, and with what forces to fight a battle vs. the tactical details of fighting it.

 

[Aothan]

Base building takes more strategic skill.

When, where, and with what forces to fight a battle vs. the tactical details of fighting it.

inasmuch as you will divide strategy into base building and tactics into combat I will treat this as a conclusion on this topic; I don't necessarily agree with the division between 'when, where, and what' (along with resource use) as these are altogether fundamental decisions for both effective organisation and movements across a field (which will fluctuate in various directions and place), but all things considered I think our different views and ideas have been suitably commented upon

 

[Johannes]

Base building takes more strategic skill.

When, where, and with what forces to fight a battle vs. the tactical details of fighting it.

inasmuch as you will divide strategy into base building and tactics into combat I will treat this as a conclusion on this topic; I don't necessarily agree with the division between 'when, where, and what' (along with resource use) as these are altogether fundamental decisions for both effective organisation and movements across a field (which will fluctuate in various directions and place), but all things considered I think our different views and ideas have been suitably commented upon

I don't think you're still quite following me - the economic situation is what determines when and where you want to / have to fight, and with what. The details of how is always subordinate to the high level decisions.

Or what is your definition of Strategy then, exactly?

 

[thesheeep]

I sure agree with your viewpoint of strategy = higher level decisions.

This is really getting kinda OT, but:
Originally, SunAge had a targeting system where squads of units could be given a preferred target, but would ultimately fire on their own.
That made microing far less important (in fact, impossible sometimes), thus increasing the importance of strategic decisions (unit composition, where to attack) over tactical clickyness.

Unfortunately, typical clickfest fanboys complained (because every RTS has to copy SC/C&C, right?) and even more unfortunately, the developer listened to that...

 

[Aothan]

economic decisions also have the same bearing in DoW II, which is decisive to how one plays at any point in time, as with the planning involved in economic development and reactions to changes across the course of the game

 

[Johannes]

economic decisions also have the same bearing in DoW II, which is decisive to how one plays at any point in time, as with the planning involved in economic development and reactions to changes across the course of the game

It's vastly less complex in DoW2 so the decisions you make are p. simple.

You still didn't answer the "what is strategy" question.

Unfortunately, typical clickfest fanboys complained (because every RTS has to copy SC/C&C, right?) and even more unfortunately, the developer listened to that...

Well, SupCom at least tried to get away from it - but the cost is that the units in it are just boring. Most of the time you don't have much reason to zoom close enough that you'd ever see anything but icons of them! Not saying it has to be that way necessarily, but it ended up p. flawed in that case at least.

And while it's not as tough to master the control scheme as in SC:BW, TA or such, it still needs a lot of that damn clicking regardless.