/v/ - Video Games★

Day9 Dailies were excellent for strategies and general RTS learning back in the day. Even his SC2 ones are still excellent for it; his earlier dailies more handled things on a very analytical level so it might be best to start with his SC2 ones tbh, the ones that teach basic shit like hotkeys, macro management, etc.

Teamliquid's site had some shit iirc; I would recommend looking over oldish VODs and whatnot.

>another blizzard thread

teamliquid.net is your friend.

Training with bots is useless because they don't behave like players. Just play vs people, and expect to lose your first 100 games or so. Part of the game is muscle-memory and just getting a feel for things.

Also sage for another bliz thread.

Day9 made an excellent guide for beginners when the remastered edition came out. You can find on Twitch, and probably on youtube. I catched a few episodes, and it really was great. Not even a big fan of the guy.

You can also watch the pros play to learn buildorders. KSL and ASL are running right now, I think.

>Where can I learn strategies?

all the games I played when I started starcraft again with their free original shit were over in their first 3 minutes. the strategy is to rush, every single game. on 3v3 it doesn't matter, as soon as 1 person goes down the game is over. which like I said, happens in the first 3 minutes.

I don't remember it being like that when I played starcraft when it first came out, maybe it was always like that.

>playing gookclick "competitively"

>>15704408

>the game's all about rushing

Rushes aren't very good if you know how to handle the few that are viable. Like, if you're up against a zerg with terran or protoss, build a wall so that zerglings can't get into your base in the early game. Send a scout to the opponents base to find out what he's doing.

>>15704417

>t. very slow player that's terrible at video games and blame them instead of himself

>>15704426

>I can memorize click patterns and button presses and repeat them faster than other people

good job retard

>>15704417

>using non-argument meme buzzwords that has no bearing on game quality

I'd say I'm disappointed in you but that would imply I had expectations for you

>>15704462

>he's resorted to reductionist shitposting

The truest sign of butthurt. What's next? Being derisive about people actually playing video games?

SC is pretty good game but SC 'strat' is not something you may think what it is.

There are time proven build orders and each of them has counters so early game scouting is extremely important. e.g) you learn what unit composition enemy is aiming for, you are given rather specific timeframe to counter attack before buildup OR outperform his army with different composition. ofc you can try unorthodox build but if enemy knows what he's doing he will absolutely stomp you by punishing your inefficiency

Learning micro is not that hard so eventually you end up with macroscopic rock-scissor-paper simulator that also functions as APM competition with barely enough time to THINK and STRATEGIZE.

Growing up in gookland I had to play it obligatorily but I hated it beside campaign mode. It is good starting RTS game but if you really like coming up with strategy and experience streamlined combat control CoH or even DoW II elite mode might be better.

>>15704600

I'm surprised you leave the threads

>>15704025 (OP)

The only good strategy is to never give money to Blizzard.

Never pay for games from marxist companies.

Pirate everything.

>>15704959

Starcraft 1 is free now, huenigger.

I agree though, Blizzard is cancerous and you shouldn't give them money.

>>15704462

That's why I like Zero-K. Because of the terrain features there's so many different strategies you can adapt.

>>15704978

To clarify, I meant the game isn't about memorizing click patterns. It's about adapting to the situation at every moment. There's no standard builds since you start with everything unlocked.

>>15704991

>>15704978

This sounds more like a real-time tactics game than a RTS. The lack of a time and I presume a resource constraint on advanced units with different abilities, strengths and weaknesses sounds like it would reduce complexity more than add to it. "Standard builds" only came out of people sharpening their strategies against each other until the most refined and efficient ones were born out of it. People had to come up with strategies to use against each other and innovate against each other for it to reach any "standard build" point, and "standard builds" can and will often change as time goes on and different units become viable. This has happened countless times over Starcraft's history despite no balancing patches as people realize every little nook, cranny in and out of each individual unit, right down to the coding behind a unit's attack and movement pattern, affecting its viability and strength in a strategy.

The game that you talk about sounds more like an RTT than an RTS from what you're describing.

>>15705011

Resources are very important in Zero-K. It would be near impossible to account for every possibility since there's many ways to tackle different problems.

>>15705029

Can you give any examples? Its hard for me to visualize this, given that nearly every RTS game has build orders (how refined they might be depends on the autism of the community, but its pretty much standard). It sounds almost too sandbox-y for there to be any meaningful strategy to be borne out of it, like its some sort of sim game. It sounds like its mainly

>get resources

>get units that counter your opponents units

>fight and win, preferably on some kind of terrain that advantages you so that your advantage increases

>cycle through the previous step until advantages accumulate and then win

From what you've described so far.

What meaningful constraints are present that breeds strategy portion? Are the resources costs between flagship units and more bread and butter units extremely different or do they take much longer to build, or both? How many "types" of resources are there? Is there a soft supply cap that comes up often? How are the maps structured?

If there's no way to account for every possibility it sounds like scouting would be key, but simultaneously if entire strategies (strategies being different than tactics; strategies are the overarching game plan one would have for a game. Build orders in traditional RTSes are simply the beginning and part of the overall strategy) can be changed on the fly, what value do they even have? If they provide no particular efficiency or value over another, what would be the point of employing one strategy over another? And if they do, why would someone use anything else besides to counter the one strategy?

>>15704025 (OP)

i'll play you right now, but im not very good and kinda drunk

Theres a starcraft Tournament starting in a few hours. I watched one round of it yesterday and it was pretty good.

https://www.twitch.tv/starcraft

https://www.twitch.tv/starcraft_kr

>>15705011

>this anon is saying that Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander/Spring is more like an RTT than an RTS

>>15706513

Stream where

>>15706525

Thats actually the wrong bracket. My bad.

>>15706535

>>15706525

Neat. SC1 is more amusing to watch than SC2, simply because it boils down to which player fucks up less than the other player.

>>15706525

>Barracks rush cheese

Hilarious

>>15706542

Literally the first cheese I have seen in KSL.

Soulkey is losing it

>>15706563

Yea, hes choking hard. He was favored to win this set too. However, I feel like Z has been really weak in this series. Seems like its been losing a lot.

>>15706568

I don't usually watch gookclick, so I don't know shit about players or meta. Just sayin'

>>15706591

I like gookclick.

>>15706611

I get the feeling that Terran is the most OP race, it just has so many tools available to it

>>15706656

Yea Terran is super strong. Protoss is really good too. I think though as the years drag by Zerg is just a little too weak and requires too much micro at the top levels. You wouldn't want nu-Blizzard touching balance though.

>>15706663

Do the leagues have their own custom balance patches?

Any suggestions on Protoss Mission 7 from the original campaign? I did well enough in all previous missions, but as soon as I hit any of the enemy bases with dragoons and reavers, the enemy starts shitting out reavers and arbiters in even greater numbers.

Not to speak of the carriers that pop up every other minute.

>>15706670

Is that the one where you have to assault the protoss bases to rescue Tassadar? I always remember that one to be a huge slog

>>15706669

No. I think they used hacked clients though to get more information out of the game for casting though.

>>15705724

I thought we were talking about Zero-K?

Regardless, have you actually got anything meaningful to say or are you going to keep doing the imageboard equivalent of a derisive snort?

>>15704025 (OP)

You missed the train 20 years ago, faggot.

>That risky as fuck rush by Killer on Game 5

Damn, he botched it, was a good gimmick though

>>15706883

He lost his spaghetti hard. He moved his lurkers into range of not one, but two cannons each. Mini basically did nothing, while Killer ran in and tripped on his own sword.

>>15706911

**lo mein

>>15705029

That's not really true. Competitive play in RTS games boils down to the most efficient build orders taking into account the most efficient build orders that may appear against you. Tackling multiple problems in competitive RTS games is about scouting to determine what your next step is. Any builds you choose outside of an efficient and optimized build that might be expected, would instead likely cost you the game, because you're playing sub-optimally. People who do not play like this or experience this problem, aren't playing an RTS game on a competitive level, as high-tier RTS gameplay always devolves into this.

An unfortunate truth is that high-tier gameplay in any RTS always gravitates to this the longer they've been out. Command and Conquer, Starcraft, Warcraft, Dawn of War, Supreme Commander, there has been no exceptions. The best you can do is hope for a game to be unpopular and complex enough to slow that decline. Complex games take longer to nail, and unpopular games have such tiny genuinely high-skill populaces that they never evolve.

>>15705724

>this anon is saying that

Is this your first greentext?

>>15704479

>memorizing click patterns is a "game"

at least other RTS like Ages series tried to actually be about strategy, featuring diverse win conditions and multiple valid strategies for achieving them

the only part of Blizzard RTS that can be called a game is the campaigns

>>15704025 (OP)

for starters, without getting into any specifics.

keep your resources below 800 at all times, then over time keep working on keeping your resources as low as possible at all times.

>>15707732

>stop liking things I don't like!

>you're only allowed to play UMS maps by themselves, you're not allowed to enjoy them and melee at the same time!

wew

>>15707732

>Being mad at people for enjoying video games

Stop

>>15707430

Would it be be to say that scouting/build order is like the moves in chess? They make one move, you make another?

>>15707732

>custom map fag can't believe people want to play something other than tower defense or dota

>>15708460

I was thinking same thing, but there are two issues

>chess has more possible boardstates and optimal moves in a situation

>chess is turn based and has no fog of war, giving players more time to respond to opponents' moves

high-level RTS, specifically blizzard RTS, always devolves into thoughtless muscle memory, rather than any actual focus on strategy like the name would imply

>>15708530

CnM and Bounds are the patrician's sport.

>>15708940

>Players end up memorizing optimal decision making tree like primitive AI.

Fortunately you can shake up these AI and force dynamic gameplay by recognizing the most common optimal decision trees and where they are flawed and utilize direct counters against them. Since they are "optimal" they usually share very specific counters that are taboo for general play or simply antithetical to how everyone feels the game should behave. Unlike primitive AI, humans have blindspots even within their realm of knowledge.

>Hosting game with slowest setting might help but then why would you play vidya instead of tabletop?

Turn-based videogames are graphical and solve the math on their own in a semi-reliable manner. Strategy games are pretty popular in their own right and I could see a hybrid real-time strategy with periods of high and low speed being really popular; you can see this kinda happen in the Total War series but I mean a more integrated approach. Something based on time mages, maybe.

>>15708984

>optimal builds have specific counters that are taboo for general play or simply antithetical

I know what you are thinking but 'optimal builds' of game like SC that has been played for nearly 20 years is optimal for reason. They are not creation of theory crafting but fruit of massive collective experiment. Allow me to dial up my autism meter and explain with standard zerg build against terran.

Terran does not have melee unit sans SCV. Meaning if I can dark swarm my ground force and snipe down vessel, it's automatic gg. Defiler is hive tier unit so my objective is to drag the game and prevent terran from stacking marines / tanks and slow down his science bay timing.

Knowing this, Terran should prevent me from expanding / protect his economy (SCVs) / siege my base before hive timing with tanks + vessel + infantry composition. Now the problem is the first two objectives are mutually exclusive. He needs marines to protect his SCVs from getting sniped by my mutalisks so they cannot leave base and he cannot vulture rush me as it will slow down his tech progression considerably with meager gain as my ground force consists of zergling who have advantage over explosive dmg type while vulture gets absolutely get wrecked by mutas.

As you can see, by going through lings -> mutas -> defiler build order I am effectively pinning him down to the base with no options other than out-microing my muta controls. This is the reason why you will never see a pro SC zerg player deviate from this build against terran. Lots of attempts were made to outplay them with different approach but nothing simply worked.

Of course, not everyone is pro player so they may fail to punish their opponent when they do downright insane builds but with ever shirking playerbase being concentrated with better players, there is no apparent escape from stale meta.

> Turnbased RTS hybrid

sounds interesting but I do not see how combat system would work out in that kind of game. Like, will that game enforce no rush within first 5 minutes rule or something? Who gets to choose when and where to initiate & how does that decision affect economy and tech progression of other side?

>>15709109

>Terran does not have melee unit sans SCV. Meaning if I can dark swarm my ground force and snipe down vessel, it's automatic gg

Technically, Firebats have a 3x splash damage attack which still affects units in the swarm, as do Siege Tank damage. However, because Firebat damage is concussive, it falls off hard against bigger units, and Siege Tanks are harder to deploy quickly.

>>15707542

>diverse win conditions

except most of those win conditions are for homosexuals

Beating your opponent down legitimately instead of relying on some literal gimmick shit is the best kind. You don't need to be given some arbitrary objectives, just defeat your opponent with the resources you're afforded and the skills you possess. No searching the map for some inane relics like its a gay platformer, no putting absurd value on a single vulnerable unit that's literally a win/lose condition (and as a result one would just keep him in a castle or somewhere where they believe the enemy would never find him, effectively resulting in a conquest style victory or a glorified hide and seek), and no bullshit forced turtling that building a wonder would necessitate. Not that I have anything against them existing, but I don't know anybody who would want to play those gay modes and I've never talked to anyone who has or ever used those as a selling point for the Age of Empires series. AoE is great, but not because of those faggy, gimmicky alternate game modes nobody gives a shit about. If you want to somehow argue in some absurdly ridiculous way that there is more strategy present in these filler-tier modes than in the simple but open-ended approach of victory of conquest you're retarded.

Conquest is best.

I'm not even going to get into your absurd "memorizing click patterns" bullshit. Tell me which game can't be beaten without pressing buttons in an optimal manner, faggot? Its a reductionist non-argument that's purely borne out of emotion, presumably because one is incapable of achieving said abilities. There is more strategy in Starcraft than you can possibly imagine. Its just been so optimized and refined that yes, there are build orders that exist. There is no objective or universal build order for each race, there are many and multiple, and most only go into the midgame and handle some things on the macro scale, but that is irrelevant to you because its just "memorizing click patterns". Never mind that someone had to come up with such builds, and someone else had to test these builds against someone else, and then someone else had to realize what could beat that build at what point in time with what units based on certain constraints and based on certain maps. No, its all just "click patterns".

>>15707430

This guy gets it.

>>15708940

Most of the overarching strategy that goes into fast-paced RTS comes outside of the game itself, thinking about the maps, theorycrafting about the resource gain and yes the build orders and possible options to take vs certain opponents and strategies. I blame the internet and general skill creep for the homogenization and optimization of such build orders, but it can't exactly be stopped since people will always test things, always try to find something better, and someone will always try to find something better than that and people will eventually realize "Hey these strategies as a general rule tend to perform better than others". Tactics tend to change on the fly quickly. Strategies are much more risky and expensive to do so the longer the game goes on, which makes sense since there should be a sacrifice for doing so since strategies themselves are so macroscopic in scale that moving one's efforts towards changing it in real-time should be difficult.

However yes, RTS games have pretty much the highest skill ceiling imaginable out of all genres as a result of this.

>>15707430

>Competitive play in RTS games boils down to most efficient build orders

That ignores external factors such as randomness (AoE, War3), timing attacks/early build orders (C&C, Starcraft) and map positions/sizes.

Rushing Zerglings is twice as effective on a short map because travel time is smaller, but that doesn't stop you from doing it on a large map to catch an opponent off guard.

I have seen, this year, someone build a proxy hatchery outside of an enemy ramp (on that gay map with the two ramps outside of your main between your main and expo), which they used to nydus canal a Defiler and a bunch of Lurkers basically straight into the opponents ramp and win the game.

Do you really think the most efficient thing for that guy to do at the time was a risky play involving building a hatchery within a stones throw of his opponents base?

>"But it won him the game so it clearly was"

It could have lost him the game too. But it wasn't about efficiency, it was about a calculated risk and taking advantage of a map layout.

>>15710693

imo assassinate win condition in Supreme Commander (how it is most commonly played) is necessary to the game, substantially more interesting and diverse in its win conditions. Between tac missiles, strat bombers, nukes and just plain old military victory, you can always see an upset win from a cleverly used tactic, or even just tip the scales. It's easy to say 'well you just sniped their commander, that's the win condition', but there are many counters to those methods and each of them could be considered a win condition in their own regard; or I suppose a means to winning.

>>15710598

>Siege Tanks are harder to deploy quickly

I'm not certain but I believe they added the ability to que actions by holding shift while giving orders in a patch, same with War3. It makes managing siege tanks easier since you can que a deploy order after a move order, as in SC2.

>>15710778

Supreme Commander's assassinate win condition is very different from AoE's regicide. For one thing ACUs have actual and significant combat value and are overall far more crucial to the game as a whole. Kings are arbitrary, slow, and overall useless in every way but you must protect them so you just end up garrisoning them in a castle or something along those lines.

SupCom did that kind of thing right to where it adds to the strategic options available and makes it actually fucking intriguing. AoE did it wrong and reduces strategic options, or ends up making it no different from the conquest condition in effect.

>>15706670

>>15706674

IIRC you can just run down there with dark templar right away and free him.

I sure wish I could still play the Starcraft: Brood War I paid hard-earned money for, but Blizzard decided to fuck me when they issued a patch a few years ago that completely broke multiplayer on Windows XP by forcing the game to use Windows 7's network stack and now they've completely broken the game's functionality on Wine. Really hope they burn in hell.

>>15707732

When people start playing Miles Laser Tag again maybe I'll care.

>>15710598

I've always thought that the damage types in Starcraft were completely unnecessary and have the effect of hiding strategic thought behind esoteric knowledge.

>>15712948

That was fucking disgusting. Unfortunately people didn't care enough to rake Blizzard for it; if they were they might've been able to threaten a class action or something.

>>15713004

>esoteric

Its pretty fucking common sense and intuitive to pick it up, anon; especially since the units themselves make it clear what they are most effective against

>some units have universal damage types (the marine, zealot and zergling for example)

>some units perform best against small units like zerglings but perform poorly against huge units like ultralisks (firebats and vultures for example)

>some units perform best against big units such as battlecruisers but not great against smaller units (dragoons, scouts (in the air), etc.)

The times when it becomes esoteric is when something has a damage type you wouldn't really expect from a unit, such as a sunken colony or a hydralisk, but its still quite easy to observe such things a few times in action and come to the conclusion.

>>15713230

I think he means esoteric in the sense that the damage types aren't displayed in game through a UI or mentioned at all

>>15709109

> Turnbased RTS hybrid

Do something like GalCiv but instead of ai controlled space battles and ground wars, have the units manually controlled.

>>15713947

That is what I meant. The mechanics behind height advantage are a bit esoteric too (ranged attacks hit only 70% of the time against higher terrain). If I remember right this isn't found anywhere in the manual.