"Thurstan R. McDougle" <trmcdougle@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>full name wrote:
>>
>> "Thurstan R. McDougle" <trmcdougle@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> >Aphex wrote:
>>
>> >> I have a few questions about this intruging thread:
>> >> What is it going on about?
>> >> What is the reason behind this limiting of actions (3 per minute etc.)
>>
>> >So that strategy/tactics rather than speed of mouse clicking is more
>> >important.
>>
>> Yes, that has been my outspoken objective for years, after being
>> fascinated by Warcraft II multiplayer and then realizing that it is
>> mostly a mousefight at the higher levels of play. And Yes, that
>> probably is how I will play. But that is not the only effect the
>> method will have on real time strategy. Its function also will be to
>> put reasonable time (or move/selection) limits on the games. Have you
>> ever played Age of Empires? I can make a game against the better
>> players last for over five hours. Extreme clicking for seven hours
>> straight. But using a timer will not necessarily slow the game, it
>> will control the timing, without messing with game speed. The timer
>> can be used to provide any constraints, from a slow game to a fast
>> game. It will control the rate of clicking versus thinking and it
>> will control the length of the game too. Control the game, not
>> necessarily slow or shorten the game, just control.
>>
>> Additionally, it will prevent the need for all sorts of artificial
>> constraints on the game, involving game speed, build times, unit
>> limits, and various weird game design.
>>
>> It might do a lot for the incredibly popular X-Craft series because
>> the control over timing probably will mean much better spectating,
>> especially when all of that design effort is put into graphics instead
>> of trying to mold the game into less of a mousefight.
>>
>> >I.E. He is trying to produce a hybrid between turn based
>> >strategy and the real time (click-fest) games like WC/SC. (The "fastest
>> >clicker wins" effect is something that even multi-player TA can suffer
>> >from, for instance if you are attacked from multiple vectors and want to
>> >perform specific targeting of both sides base defenses/mobile units.)
>> >
>> >IMHO most strategy players would just go turn based for that,
>>
>> Timing will tell.
>>
>> >but perhaps he wants to draw the WC/SC types over to actually thinking.
>> >(Checks this is not cross-posted to the SC forum...No, good)
>>
>> I posted to the StarCraft forum about the same time I first posted
>> here. Strangely enough (being a large group compared to this nearly
>> extinct group), the StarCraft forum has <snip> kept from flaming me
>> for it.
>
>No flames for you, but not one post discussing your idea! (out of 185
>messages in the thread)
I have much experience posting ideas to UseNet. No reply is often
times a very good reply.
This particular idea suggests a fundamental change to the whole genre.
If it is viewed as a good idea, one might expect awe inspired silence
from people who are not overly defensive of their egos.
Of course I would like more, but I am very pleased with the discussion
the idea received in the design group. Now that the thing is in what
appears to be a well refined form ready for application, there isn't
much left to talk about except what effect it might have on game play.
I would love talk about that, but maybe that is a cumbersome design
issue more easily decided by play testing.
--
Real Timed Strategy Gaming
http://pages.prodigy.net/logicshaping
mbender@satx.rr.com
"A computer in every home - mine, all mine!"
|
