This is completely arbitrary though. If the units/defenses are smart enough to differentiate between tanks/infantry, then why shouldn't they also be smart enough to distinguish between high value and low value targets such as raptors vs auroras?Attack the rocket troopers instead of red guards. Attack the commando instead of the red guards. Attack the Aurora Bomber after it throw its bomb instead of raptor.
Theres enough to handle at your own
If your whole fucking army focus one dumb soldier instead of enemy tanks it really sucks. I dont get the point why you have such a problem with this. It makes unit handling more easy.
YOU may think it's fine to leave that up to the player, but someone who is worse at playing than you are will say that they find it too hard, and want the game to do it automatically. Moreover, what if the counter system is such that raptors and auroras have totally different armor types? For example King Raptors are as immune to missile fire as infantry are. So if you don't want a bunker full of rocket infantry firing at a red guard instead of tanks, then you also don't want it firing at King Raptors instead of Auroras or Comanches etc. So why not automate that too?
Your desire for semi-automation is completely arbitrary. Meanwhile if we say we want units to be "dumb as rocks", then that's an end point of a spectrum, and not as arbitrary - it's a more natural design that puts control in the hands of the player.
On a sidenote, many games with jet-aircraft absolutely require auto-priorities precisely because aircraft move so fast you cannot reliably give an attack order. I admit that even my own 1337 skills often weren't enough to handle this in Gen1, either, without half my mobile forces picking up a move command or my static AA not being able to react in time unless the enemy has his jets fly in circles.
*What makes this mechanic clever is how you can exploit the unintelligent behavior of uncontrolled units/defenses to improve the effectiveness of your attacks. The attacking player is thusly rewarded for paying attention to his attack, while the defender does not pay attention to his defense. It's quite simply not fair that the defender's defense is as effective as the attacker's attack if the defender is being lazy and wants the defense to be as effective as if he were controlling it himself.
This is ridiculous, now you want to automate overkill control too? Overkill is when you deliver too much firepower on a target. It's a WASTE of a raptor attack to kill an infantry unit instead of something like a tank or building. That's the point of it - so that you have to choose which targets are most appropriate for the attack type of that aircraft. Besides, if a KR could kill 6 different infantry easily, it would make it RIDICULOUSLY overpowered.Same goes for the thread i started once about airplanes. Airplanes shouldnt shot 8 missiles at once. They should shot 2 or 4 or 8 missles - players choice. its really dumb if airplanes shot 8 missiles on a simple solider ( 1 shot enough ) if there are lots of solidiers they could take out.
Further, you can already tell a KR to fire only one missile at a time with good control, but it's very hard. An excellent skill differentiator.
No offense meant, but I could quite easily, and regularly, laser lock multiple incoming migs in CCG/ZH. It was actually very easy :PI admit that even my own 1337 skills often weren't enough to handle this in Gen1, either, without half my mobile forces picking up a move command or my static AA not being able to react in time unless the enemy has his jets fly in circles.
Last edited by EA_Agm; 12-31-2011 at 12:57 PM.
The situation isn't meant to be fair, an AA defense is meant to defend against air, not take potshots at tank target dummies. You can still send decoys against it, like first sending in a group of raptors at a low-priority target and having the second group follow close behind but striking a high-priority target. It's quite simply not fair that the attacker's attack is as effective as the defender's defense if the attacker is lazy and doesn't even bother sending a proper decoy.
He saying that the player will still need to make a decision to attack an Aurora over a Raptor. In this example, he is implying that even if a defense automatically targets a certain class of units, that the player still has the opportunity to determine which unit within that class should be manually prioritized. My point is just because two units share the same class, doesn't mean they can't be as different from one another as two units in different classes. My use of the King Raptor is an illustration of this point. Distracting a rocket-based defense with a King Raptor is as "annoying" as distracting a rocket defense with an infantry unit.Yeah of course you have to do things better than your enemy.
Attack the rocket troopers instead of red guards. Attack the commando instead of the red guards. Attack the Aurora Bomber after it throw its bomb instead of raptor.
Theres enough to handle at your own
Thus my point is that if Nervmich has a problem with defenses picking the wrong targets, he should also have a problem with rocket defense picking a Raptor over an Aurora. He is contradicting himself if he feels that rockets should not attack infantry instead of tanks, but that it's ok for them to attack Raptors (in this case, King Raptors) instead of Auroras. Why is one ok, but the other is not?
I used the word exploit in the context of its meaning in the English language, not in the context of a bug or feature. The same context as "Exploiting a weakness in the enemy's strategy", so I'm not sure what you're getting at here...Right, thanks for using the word "exploit". It's not a bug, it's a feature, I know (no sarcasm there, really). Thing is, it's a stupid and frustrating feature, like the free and infinite flying decoys from US supply drop zones. The situation isn't meant to be fair, an AA defense is meant to defend, not take potshots at decoys. You can still send decoys against him, like first sending in a group of raptors at a low-priority target and having the second group follow close behind but striking a high-priority target.
But I'm not sure you understand how game design works. A principle of game design is that players are rewarded for input and control. In the context of a competitive PvP match, it means that players with BETTER input and control should be rewarded for it. That's how good game design works - you reward players who play the game better than players who do not.
So in the case of defenses, defenses should be LESS EFFECTIVE if they are not being controlled by the player, just like units should be LESS EFFECTIVE if they are not being controlled by the player. If you automate them, you are diminishing the difference between control, and lack of control, which is bad game design.
Last edited by EA_Agm; 12-31-2011 at 01:20 PM.
You are using a different type of class as he is. For him, the classes are very clearly in terms of vulnerability, for you they are in terms of movement here. Note that he is NOT talking about the King Raptor, which is an anomaly in the jet-aircraft class in that it does not share the common vulnerabilities, therefore making the differentiation very important here.
It is also very important for game design not to add needlessly complicated or difficult elements as doing so has a high risk of frustrating players. Such elements would quickly be considered Fake Difficulty (the specific issue is a case of Artificial Stupidity) which should be avoided wherever possible as it will greatly reduce the playerbase. There is no use having perfect PVP if only five people are willing to play it.
And I'll put you on my ignore list if you want to argue with me over semantics. I guess I should have used the phrase "take advantage of" instead of "exploit". I guess I'll use exploit in another context "I wanted to exploit the time I had available to me"... In otherwords "take advantage of". I hate arguing semantics with people. It's such a god damn waste of time...This is yet another time that you direct such a statement at me without any basis or relevance; I do consider this as an insult. If you do it again, I will put you on my ignore list indefinitely
In your opinion..... in my opinion, lack of depth and skill differentiators reduces the player base too. StarCraft and StarCraft 2 have LOADS of fake difficulty, yet are the most actively played RTS games in existence. So why has their artificial stupidity and fake difficulty not resulted in diminished player bases? Perhaps because artificial stupidity and fake difficulty does the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim? Unless you can point to another RTS game that has been more successful than SC/SC2 which is "dumbed down" so speak, then you actually no evidence to back up your claim.which should be avoided wherever possible which should be avoided wherever possible as it will greatly reduce the playerbase
Exactly. Nobody is willing to keep playing an easy/shallow game And besides, there's no point in PvP if there isn't a variety in skill differentiators. Having a better build order or strategy is only a small (and very easy) fraction of what creates the skill spectrum in CCG/ZH and other RTS games. Dexterity, unit control, "taking advantage of" weaknesses in the AI etc, playing faster, are all HEALTHY dimensions of skill.There is no use having perfect PVP if only five people are willing to play it.
Last edited by EA_Agm; 12-31-2011 at 01:55 PM.
Victory Games is Electronic Arts' dedicated Strategy Gaming studio. Formed in 2010 under the leadership of Jon Van Caneghem, Victory Games has offices in Los Angeles, CA; Austin, TX; and Shanghai, China and is currently focused on the Command & Conquer franchise.