StarCraft II for Age of Empires Players: Part I (Game Design & Analysis)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ส.ค. 2016
- Hey folks,
I've been working on a large comparative analysis between my favorite RTS series, Age of Empires, and a game I've been playing a ton lately, StarCraft II. This is the first of (probably) two parts.
Production notes:
-- ELO ratings cited for launch of Age of Empires 3 based on community ladder which used the same ELO formula as Age of Empires 2 and sourced win / loss data from an Ensemble-provided API.
References:
-- www.gamespy.com/pc/age-of-myth...
-- www.eurogamer.net/articles/201...
-- artho.com/age/aoefish.html (interview with Ian Fischer)
-- www.amazon.com/dp/0782127711 (Age of Empires Scenario Design Toolkit)
-- www.eurogamer.net/articles/bli... (Mike Morhaime interview)
-- venturebeat.com/2016/02/25/how... (Bruce Shelly interview)
-- www.amazon.com/dp/1556229127 (Side Meier Interview)
-- us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/to... (game speed community update)
-- aoe3.heavengames.com/interview... (pre-aoe3 interview with ES)
-- github.com/Blizzard/s2protocol (official sc2 replay parser)
-- www.agecommunity.com/press.asp... (Age of Empires III two million copies sold)
-- us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/5202... (talking balance with David Kim)
-- www.shacknews.com/article/6017... (Battle.net interview)
-- www.agecommunity.com/aoeinterv... (various Ensemble interviews)
-- www.eurogamer.net/articles/201... (StarCraft II sales)
-- wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2... (38 balance patches for SC2) - เกม
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 68 | คู่เอก "พระจันทร์ฉาย vs โจนาธาน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/F3IM3w-XchI/mqdefault.jpg)
You could always have semi-randomised maps. Have a map procedurally generated, but mirrored, so that each player has the same layout to work with.
True, was thinking the same
I clicked figuring this was gonna be a cool silly mod with Starcraft Units vs. Age of Empires units and instead got a fascinating psychological study that let me understand gaming on a deeper level. Well done!
Same here. High five anonymous person of the internet.
As a very frequent StarCraft II Matchmaking Mapmaker, I'd like to comment that, firstly you are very correct in the many different angles you touched upon in your video regarding the intricacies of mapping.
Procedural Generation in SC2 maps, however, wouldn't work as they would in AoE from some simple characteristics. As you stated, AoE takes into consideration the distance of certain resources, such as berry bushes. From my experience, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, much of the terrain in AoE games is really determined by the placement of trees. StarCraft 2 maps have their terrain obscured by cliff levels, not resources, certain units as well take different identities just by a 1 cell difference between multiple features (say, a cliff face and a mineral patch). As you mentioned correctly, some players will study map design (or hear from others) what features can be abused in maps, as I would call part of the maps identity. Not to mention, StarCraft II maps are highly detailed in their doodads/models/textures - as you likely noticed by playing ladder as well as opening the editor yourself. Random generation would attempt to find a "balanced" layout within certain ranges (all bases are roughly 30-35 cell distance from eachother, the average base has an area of X cells, where naturals are X/Y, thirds X/Z, etc). However, it would miss out on the identity of what makes a map, a map. Static maps have personalities in most of the games that contain them, for example, de_dust2 in the CounterStrike series, is one of the most iconic maps in PC First Person Shooters, as is Blood Gulch in the Halo series. In StarCraft, you have maps such as Fighting Spirit, Python, Blue Storm in the original, or Daybreak, Cloud Kingdom, and Overgrowth in the sequel. Amongst the SC2 map community, I often talk more about the new textures or models Blizzard adds in their next content phase. I personally find myself known amongst the community because I make very aesthetically pleasing and identifiable maps, such as Namaste, seen here; i.imgur.com/NmyTU5j.png
Thinking of maps purely amongst balance might be something that Blizzard might want to do, but I feel it's equally important to consider level design identity when regarding game design.
Great video, I look forward to Part II. I would recommend attempting to play Brood War (perhaps on iccup or fish), and making some comparisons from there as well - perhaps RTS like Total Annihilation, or the Command and Conquer series. There are many lessons to be seen in each RTS title, to see what worked and what didn't, or what did work and for some reason, vanished.
Thank you for your detailed comment. Your point about the identity of maps is really interesting. In Age of Empires the 'theme' of a map (the constraints placed on the generator, like where to put water or how to place down cliffs) became its identity. For example, the Mediterranean map had a large lake in the middle and tried to create three-front games (two sides of the lake and the water battle on the lake). It's a really good point that static maps have their own unique identity as well, crafted by the mapmaker.
I think one of the larger points I take away from your comment is that static maps are a design decision made as part of a larger system. Other game mechanics (e.g. high-ground / low-ground) are designed with the idea that the maps will be static and high-ground / low-ground interactions fully thought-through by the map maker. It wouldn't be trivial to just 'flip the switch' and move from one system to another.
I have definitely seen your work! :-) I'm curious, have you seen Jacky's production notes on New Gettysburg? I loved that post and I would definitely be interested if you put together something similar for one of your maps.
I got to talk to Jacky_ when I went down to L.A for the Blizzard Summit! Despite language barriers we were able to talk about different ideas and I'd say he and I both share approaches in the major departments of balance. However, it's not uncommon that most of us drastically differ from layout styles. I know that some authors will draw out maps on paper, some, like Kantuva and his middles, have specific features that he builds upon. Others, like myself, completely free-form the whole thing and base a layout off of an aesthetic idea rather than a layout idea (though the latter happens on occasion, but I'll approach it in a more kantuva method than my own).
Bringing up highground and lowground interactions is an interesting point, such a simple mechanic can definitely put a game into a specific set of rules. I didn't play AOE2 until much later, but I did play a game called Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds, which was basically a complete re-skin of AOE2 into the theme of Star Wars. I do remember there being a cliff system in its editor, but it seemed to be an illusion, where units above the cliff were still on the same 2d plane as those below it, the cliffs only making it seem to be a highground lowground interaction. And even then, those cliffs were sparingly used, and generally used for chokepoints rather than a defenders advantage system ala Brood War, Total Annihilation or DotA 2.
Interesting! I remember precisely what you are talking about in SWGB; AoE2 also had similar style cliffs (used as natural barriers rather than to create high/low-ground interactions). Speaking of SWGB, loved that game :-)
Just to expand on this - I am a Starcraft 1 mapper - I made a procedurally generated map long ago, and the problem was that it just didn't really add much new to the table or give anyone a good time, it was less fun than a hand-crafted map and was thus a waste of my time lol
Those cliffs have high/low ground interactions. A unit standing on top of a cliff, just like a unit standing on top of a hill, does more damage and takes less.
High silver, low grandmaster... it checks out boys :^)
:-)
Considering how long you spent talking about Maps, I think you'd find Brood War very interesting, a common complaint in SC2 is that maps all play virtually the same, unlike in BW where maps influenced play and strategy considerably more.
Readysetzerg finally someone plays on low settings as me :)
I’m so confused
LOL it's as if he never even played SC2
SC1/Brood War had an accessible campaign editor and its icon took up 1/4 of the launch screen.
Thanks! This is really good to know.
well, there was no such thing as esports back then they couldve focused on. that just developed out of the game being awesome and competitive
I never figured out why the units I put down would disappear and the map would start like a normal skirmish instead.
*****
Fuck, I never even knew that. It's been a long time since I played the game, so maybe I will dig my disks out sometime.
@@Jo08743 uh... What? Brood War pretty much created e-sports.
Wow, this video is very helpful! I've been designing a new RTS and some of your insights are really helping me choose what the best RTS should look like, and what it could be capable of.
This is a very interesting and well made video! I'm glad that I stumbled upon it :)
The only thing I feel like isn't allways working out is comparing one game (Starcraft II) to a series.
For example you talk about the development of one game and how it changed over time and then about 3 or 4 different games. This brings up interesting elements and comparisons but it sometimes does not take in account that all the games of the Age series still exist side by side and that one game did not simply replace its predecessor.
Hey, I've been binging all your RTS videos. They are very interesting, thank you.
From someone who has played both these games at a highish level, this was a great video, very well made
Thank you! I really appreciate it. :-)
Very nice in-depth analysis of game design from the point of view of competitive gaming with all the development discussion taking place on TH-cam.
Thanks! I really appreciate it :-)
yogibear47 Also mentioned you to Extra Credits; not sure if you're a fan of them but they've been doing game development videos on different concepts for a few years.
Thanks! I have not heard of them. I'll check them out when I find some time :-)
"Anytime I'm feeling salty, I can easily tell myself that someone like Innovation never would have lost that game." The legends are true! There exists a SC2 player that doesn't blame every loss on Blizzard. WE HAVE FOUND HIM!
Woah this video was uploaded three years ago and I just found it today. Great analysis bro, you're right about everything haha. I'll watch the whole series. Cheers!
As a fan of both franchises, this video was an awesome watch! Please do more!
Thank you! I really appreciate it. I will be sure to work hard on part two. :-)
Very interesting video. Looking forward to part 2!
Thanks! I really appreciate it :-)
Best explanation of the differences I've ever seen and showing pros and cons on both sides instead of saying "this game is much better than this game because of this!" awesome video mate, thanks!
Excellent and reasonable analysis based on elaborate research. Very informative and surprisingly hard to turn off despite not being that interested in it initially.
Really really cool video, looking forward to the next one!
Thanks! I really appreciate it, I'll be sure to work hard on the next part :-)
Very well made, thank you for this. TH-cam needs more content creators like you!
Thank you! That means a lot, I really appreciate it. :-)
Interesting! I'm primarily an Age player and was given this link from my friend who has been trying to get me into SC for years :D can't wait for part 2. Cheers :)
Thank you! I really appreciate it. I will be sure to work hard on part two and do my best. :-)
Very good intro, got my attention immediately. You know exactly what you want to say and bring the message short and clear. Very impressive! Subbed in the first minute. Though i would suggest to never make videos longer than 10 minutes. Seperate the topics into different videos (without using part 2 in title), only use the best content to keep people hooked. I can also understand that views/hours of work is not your concern and you just want to make a perfect analysis.
As a StarCraft player, I found this very intriguing. 👌
Thank you! I really appreciate it. :-)
One of the aspects of random map generation not talked about with regards to the age series is buildings layout. This merges with scouting as an overall skill and is something that is incredibly important to how games play, as even open maps such as arabia in AoE2 need to be played to keep vulnerable parts of your economy safe.
Conversely recognising a bad map can completely change a strategy on a game to game basis, which wouldn't happen on a static map. For example recognising early that an enemy has a woodline particularly far away from his TC would encourage a scout rush as they can chase villagers down and the enemy has to play around that as a possibility regardless of what strategy or civ they choose. The enemy player in that case might focus placing buildings in that area forming walls or instead put aggressive production buildings near you to pressure you and protect himself with offense.
If you want to look at online play for the age series (specifically AoE2) take a look at voobly, they are an independant community that basically kept the series alive between the shutdown of zone and steam picking back up the series. Almost all high level gameplay (outside of the far east) is played here for 2 and the people there could give you a lot of detail about the game :)
Overall a great video and I'm interested in the further episodes.
Thank you! This is a really helpful comment. I will be sure to check out Voobly!
Hey man, good job on the quality of this video. You obviously put a lot of effort and thought behind it and it was an interesting watch!
In future I think you might want to consider using the original AoE II instead of HD if you are going to talk about the series though. HD has been plagued with issues since the start and really no top players play there with any frequency. The HD gameplay is still very different to what you would see in high level games. TheViper (top player) and VooblyOfficial are good places to go if you want to see some quality aoc content :)
That being said I really enjoyed the video and hope you make more ^^
Thank you! I used footage from the HD version because it looks much better on TH-cam. I want to make sure I respect these amazing games by presenting them in a high quality way, and I think the HD version does this best for folks who haven't played it. While the footage comes from the HD version, the commentary is based on gameplay from the original.
So, on the subject of simpler vs more complex macro, when I used to play SC2 competitively (nearly 10 years ago, and I never got higher than Silver 1v1 and Gold 2v2), one of the more frustrating things about the game for me was how important macro was as a skill. At that low a level, and (I'm told) even as high as Platinum, 1v1 is ultimately just a test of macro, simply because the further you are from the skill ceiling, the bigger the percentage difference between players tends to be. The games I won, I won because I was better at pressing hotkeys quickly; not because I had somehow outwitted the other player.
A very well made thought through video!
Thank you! I really appreciate it. :-)
It should be noted that due to AoEII's map editor, it actually gets the best of both worlds in terms of map design. You get the on-the-fly strategies from the randomly generated maps, and it also has static maps like 'Europe' that players can turn to if they want to have that stability from game to game.
Damn this was good. I always have a hard time explaining age of empires to my friends that mostly play starcraft. Great work! I do wonder why you did not show high lvl age play or only used the hd edition as opposed to voobly where high lvl play occurs.
Thank you! I will be sure to check out Voobly to get some high-level replays on the HD edition. :-)
Why are you comparing the changes of AoE 2 to AoE3 with a balance patch of SC2? Wouldn't it be more apt to compare the changes of AoE2 to AoE3 with the changes of SC1 to SC2?
I think both comparisons are valid; the comparison here is the Age series against StarCraft II specifically.
yogibear47 yes, lets compare apples and bicycles
@@L3monsta he explains it in the video. In a 6 years gap, Ensemble Studios released 3 different games (AoE2, AoM, AoE3). Instead of releasing balancing updates, they developed a whole new game to introduce new ideas. What has blizzard done in a 6 years gap? Updated SC2.
Bloody sick video mate
Thanks! I really appreciate it :-)
Cool video. Subscribed and looking forward to Part 2. :D
Thanks! I really appreciate it. :-)
I have a few problems with the video.
> "Making Starcraft slower would not make the game more enjoyable for newer players as it would not improve their play relative to other players."
This confuses the capacity of a new player to beat their opponent with their enjoyment of the game. If new players are not as attuned to the games mechanics then a slower pace allows them to think more deeply about their actions. It shifts the emphasis of the game from mechanical skill under a high time pressure to strategy that can take into account deeper aspects of the game's design. I'm not arguing for slower speed here, there is an argument for a fast pace as it allows for the player to reach a flow state and emphasises an economy of attention, but there is difference in how new players will engage and learn from the game at different speeds
> " Random maps allow for less innovation then static maps"
This is a matter of perspective. More innovation and thought ultimately goes into a set static map in Starcraft over the long haul but the moment to moment gameplay of Starcraft involves significantly innovation in play strategies as an adaptation in the map, as you've mentioned elsewhere in the video.
cant wait for part 2
Thank you!
Thanks for the good video, will wait for the second part : )
Thank you! I will work hard on the second part and do my best. :-)
Thanks for this. As a fan of the podcast Three Moves Ahead, you make some very astute points. I would love to see your thoughts applied to other RTS / RTT games like Relic's Dawn of War and Company of Heroes series or Rise of Nations!
Thanks! I don't have as much experience with those games so I'm not sure how well I could put together a video for them. I will definitely be putting together at least one video for Dawn of War 3, though!
Nice analysis,as an RTS veteran and huge fan of both aoe and sc I agree with most of what you said.
22:30 What you describe is actually what occurred during the LotV beta. Blizzard experimented with much simpler macro mechanics (initially not having mules/inject/chronoboost and then trying out auto-casting mules and injects and then eventually settling on versions of Mule/Chonoboost/Inject that aren't quite as powerful as the versions in HotS). What happened is that progamers despised the change as everyone pretty much macroed at the same level and it weakened the game. Blizzard settled for the aforementioned weaker macro mechanics as a balance between trying to appease pros and not scaring away new players with the increased pace of the early game (12 workers as opposed to 6 previously) and much more demanding multitask and micro.
Interesting video
Thanks for your comment and explanation! I had a vague idea about this series of events but had never seen it explained clearly. I really appreciate it!
I was there during the three-way forum debates about macro mechanics on TeamLiquid.net. People were split into three main factions:
1. Remove macro mechanics. I supported this faction.
2. Keep them the way they are. This faction was about the same size as #1.
3. Automate macro mechanics (Queen auto-inject, permanent Chrono Boost, etc.). This was smaller than #1 or #2.
Blizzard managed to piss off all three factions by leaving macro mechanics in, but but nerfed and manually cast. The one macro mechanic that everyone was okay being left manually cast (Chrono Boost) was instead automated (made permanent).
They basically ignored the community to pander to progamers.
As a hardcore Starcraft fan who first got into RTS by playing Age 2, this was really cool looking forward to the next episodes!
I'm glad! I'll be sure to work hard on part two and do my best. :-)
woee this is a really good video
Thanks! I really appreciate it :-)
A very nice in depth analisys. Very well done.
I have one question though: why do your SCVs carry cakes instead of minerals :D?
almost every year the workers do something like that in sc2 anniversary
"the mindset players are expected to adopt in order to be successful ends up aligning with the philosophy used to build the game" This video deserves more than 10k views.
Thank you! I really appreciate it. :-)
Really interesting video
Good video, I liked it!
My one complaint was when you said you had to google how to open the SC2 map editor. It as a button for opening it right on the launcher! :P
Thank you! Haha, yes, I was super surprised that the link was right there after I looked up how to open it.
I can agree with allot of what you say however, every expansion of SC2 has changed the play-style allot because of the unit additions even if within one expansion the game doesn't change much. try it out and you'll see
An interesting bit on the mapmaker, in Brood War the map editor was MUCH MUCH more intuitive and easy to use. I believe it also used the term "Scenario" (they definitely used scenario in Warcraft 2 at least). Warcraft 3 was between Starcraft 2 and Brood War in terms of complexity.
As a long time aoe3 player I want to show a slightly different perspective at this. First of all, in a sense the vast iteration changes that are pretended to apply to the age of empires series arent that much of a thing. At least, since 2005, there haven't really been any insane changes. The problem these games face, and in particular age of empires 3, is just a lack of support after the game has been released, in all aspects of it. Blizzard excells at supporting a game throughout its lifespan. Age of empires 3 has the most unique civs out of the age of empires games, and also the most extreme balance problems, to the point where tournaments only featured two out of the fourteen available civs, or banned the civs that were considered too strong.
In 2010 when starcraft 2 released many higher level community members, me included, where very excited about this game. The rumours of broodwars insanely good balance and longlasting support from blizzard were like heaven for these players, all at least to some extend frustrated by the vast imbalances in the game.
In the end, starcraft 2 for me was fun to play throughout most of my 'career'. The problem I faced, which I think is just not properly valued in this video, was that macro was too hard. Aoe3 is fun in the sense that strategy matters so much. Even average players come to forums with strategy questions, questions about build orders, and usually that is the main aspect they can improve on. Macro is easy, although properly distributing vills over the 3 resources features and managing the villagers properly can be pretty intensive still, easy enough to play at a level where strategy and micro are the deciding factors.
That last part is what I missed in sc2. Every game I played, I was terribly frustrated by my inability to play the game in the way the pros played it. I'm not a scrub, I got to diamond pretty easily, but was still so annoyed by the fact that my mechanics in general were too limiting. I couldn't macro well while babysitting my army. Doing these multipronged dropship harass tactics while microing my army would always rek my macro. The optimal way for me to play was to focus purely on macro, execute some build order and try to attack move my army. In the end that couldn't keep me hooked to the game. I want my strategic maneuvres, my build orders and army compositions to be the deciding factor in my games, not the fact that my macro was poor.
The final conclusion that a player with 30 apm can play a game at a basic level in sc2 might be true, they kinda play the game yes. They don't actually get to a point where they can execute normal build orders or make actual strategic decisions. Starcraft 2 always proposes the idea of easy to learn, hard to master. To some extend they succeed in that, especially with the intelligent unit AI, but in terms of macro they fail at this. It is not easy to learn how to macro, its continuously too hard unless you are willing to continuously tryhard at the game, and even then the sheer dominance of the macro skill in the outcome of the game has always frustrated me to no end.
I guess I sound slightly biased, but trust me I wanted to love starcraft, I really did. The support for aoe3 is shit, theres only 2000 players left online at a moment in time and the lag can be really frustrating, but starcraft 2 just couldn't take its place for me. It might me feel like doing a pointless repetitive task was the most important part of the day. The extreme depth when it comes to strategy never truly applied to me. If you'd be able to play as well as innovation or zest, starcraft 2 seems a ridiculous amount of fun. Getting there as someone who doesn't want to go through a practisegrinder and wants to play more casually, is simply impossible. I unfortunately couldn't even get close, although I did play at an above average level.
Thanks for your detailed comment! I definitely understand where you're coming from; excellent macro is critical to reaching the highest levels of play. But I'd disagree that it's necessary to play the game and enjoy it. What's a "normal" build order? What are "actual" strategic decisions? Do you mean "normal" and "actual" relative to the optimal decisions a professional player might make? For me it seems odd to expect to play like a professional player yet not apply the same mechanics. You mentioned that you were in Diamond; that's a high skill level! To go beyond that point, the game is structured in such a way as to reward good mechanics. That doesn't mean that the game itself is hard, just that the activity of becoming a master at that game is hard. Doesn't that apply to all games, not just StarCraft II?
I made a procedurally generated map for the original StarCraft long ago, it's always existed in the series, just have to look for it! :D
Good fucking video: really in-depth and insightful. Thanks, man!
Loved the video, and was hoping you address something in your resource video to connect back to whether procedural generation would be possible for SC (because if there was a way to do it I'd love to see it). I think that the biggest problem comes down to the differences in resource organization and how significant the differences between races is when considering whether they can easily access those resources. The connection between the ability to take your natural/3rd on a certain map and which race you are, is huge. Pairing that with the fact that resources are modular, means that small differences from procedural generation would have a massive impact on the balance of any single match. I'd hate to be a Z with a tiny choke at my natural and a distant third.
Thank you! Yeah, this is really interesting. AVEX left a detailed comment earlier talking about why procedural generation in SC would be so hard to implement; some of the game's mechanics assume elements of the map have been consciously placed (e.g. high-ground / low-ground interactions). I probably won't touch on it in my next video but I'll keep it in mind for the future. :-)
Great video, I enjoyed your analysis. I partially disagree with your discussion of the simplification and the depth of macro. I think that some changes are necessary to make the game less overwhelming to beginners, and that it's possible to design some of these changes to have a low impact on high level play. Take the worker counters for example, pro level players had no trouble assessing their worker allocation at a glance, or maybe a quick boxing of the mineral line to count the rows. For beginning players, this acts as training wheels for proper worker allocation, teaching them about mining efficiency and lowering the skill floor for macro at the lowest level of play. Yes you can argue that this is removing a macro skill that differentiates players, but I believe the impact is small for the benefit it provides.
Personally, I think the biggest problem with improving at Starcraft is that the game does provide enough "feedback" for progression: most the people that I have seen improve at this game do so because of their "learning" mindsets that allow them to be aware of their decisions, read into the post game statistics, and analyze replays properly. The game itself needs to place emphasis on the importance of macro, maybe by the way of comparison. For example when a player hovers over their unspent resource average, it displays the average for players in the next league up. I realize that their are youtube videos, reddit posts, guides on teamliquid, etc. explaining this stuff, but it would be great to internalize it to the game somehow.
Thank you! Great points. I think what you're highlighting here is the difference between accessibility (skill floor) and skill ceiling. I definitely agree that, when possible, we should try to make games more accessible without lowering the skill ceiling - a tutorial, for instance, is a great way to do that, as is (per your point) better automated post-game analysis.
Hey, are you Parfait from ESO? Would be nice to see if you returned, community is still active and we didn't forget you :)
Yes, that's me :-) That's cool to know - thank you for letting me know! Probably not at this time as I'm very busy. Maybe later in the year. :-)
Cool! Maybe you like it to read this: eso-community.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=7285&hilit=starcraft
Cool, thanks for linking :-) I actually tried to play a bit today, wasn't able to find a game. Tried both on and off ESOC. Are you guys still using ESO?
Yes, ESO is still the biggest platform for AoE3. How come you didn't find a game? Mostly you can just host, join or use quicksearch :)
If you want, we can play: MCJim is my ESO name.
Could be that you forgot to enable TWC civs in the TAD game list filter. Or even (though very unlikely), may have logged onto TWC, which only 10 people play.
I love TBS and games that allow an active pause. I can't really relate to that.
Still an interesting insight.
Both are great games!
Procedurally-generated maps, but the players get to study and practise them beforehand. I.e. they are pre-generated. Also the inherent unfairness of randomness has already been solved in Contract Bridge: the cards are pre-shuffled, and scoring is by how you played those cards compared to others who also played those exact same cards. So you don't win/lose by bad RNG, but by handling that bad RNG better/worse than your competitors.
I could cry out loud every time I get reminded, that the macro mechanics in sc2 were much better until LotV. I played protoss, Chronoboost was a vital part in every early to mid game strategy.(For Non sc2 player a discription below) Chronoboost was a very powerful tool and nerfing it was a big nerf in total for toss. On the otherside zergs mechanic larva inject was just made easier and terrans mechanic wasn't touched at all. Combining with nerfing pylon warp in, I get often disgusted when playing from times to times. I can't get over it. Nerver will
Additional macro machanics of (old: before Legacy of the Void)sc2: Each of the 3 races has in addition to the mandatory worker production one big unique macro mechanic.
Zerg: Every 20sec or so, u have to click with a Unit(Queen) on every main building, in order to produce sufficient of any unit. This is very APM demanding. Even low level player often have 100APM more then Toss/Terran. If you forget it for some time, your loss is almost certain. Additionally queens could spread creep which reveals enemy unit and makes yours faster, also vital to any mid to late game. You have a hard time macroing when playing zerg.
Terran: Main building collects energy over time and u can( and have to) use it for an additional very fast temporary worker or a scout option which reveals a part of the map.
U can forget it( In contrary to the zergs mechanic) because u can collect some energy in a pool and use it all at once. Obviously it is much better to use regulary.
Protoss: Your main building also collects energy over time and u can use it for a so called chronboost which increases temporary the speed of every production and researching building. If the enemy attacks, u can chrono every unit production building at once in order to defend yourself. If you're building up your base u will chrono your main building in order to produce more workers. Many strategies relied on the fact that the research made it earlier if you never forget to chrono your research building.
Tilman Rotational Invariant i mean chronoboost still work effectively the same just doesn't have a timer anymore, which might change with the upcoming patch. It's not that incredibly different, it forces you to make a choice of what you want out faster which adds more strategy late game. But i can certainly understand preferring the old chrono, and i certainly can't blame you. As for zerg, i don't really understand what you mean by injects are easier to do now because it's exactly the same as it was in hots. I mean there was a really short time it had auto cast but that was removed a very long time ago.
You should compare C&C3 (and RA3) and StarCraft 2!
Just to add up to the discussion. I am a brood war enthusiast (not a good player but I like to study the game a lot), and the way brood war worked is very interesting.
Blizzard hasn't released a balance patch to Brood War since the early 2000's. All the balancement was made by mapmakers, who fine tune their maps in order to suit all the different matchups. Yet, progamers consider it to be one of the most balanced games of all times. Another thing is that, there's a relatively big variety of openings, but the core strategy for each matchup is pretty much the same. A lot of units aren't used at all (like ghosts) or very rarely used (like scouts), while others appear in every game (such as tanks, dragoons and zerglings). The tendency is that your opening build converges to this standard mid and late game, unless some cheesy play catches one of the players out guard.
So, the game is extremely mechanic and highly tactical, focusing a lot on positioning and judgement on where and when to take opportunities to attack, expand, harrass, etc. It is very different from SC2, where you are a lot more focused on finding out exactly what your opponent is doing in order to build the counter to it. You rarely do a complete transition from one core army to another in brood war. You simply either add more stuff to your army, get upgrades, or sometimes build an occasional support unit to adapt to something your opponent is doing (for example, getting science vessels and a couple of goliaths as a Terran when your protoss oponent gets Arbiters), but not changing the core composition of your army (which remains mostly tanks and vultures)
Checking the view counts from your other videos, safe to say reddit was very kind to you today.
:-)
What's your ESO nick? Maybe it rings a bell :)
(Nice video btw!)
I was Parfait on ESO, but I don't play anymore :-)
21:15 Ehh, this might seem to be the case, but I'd argue the contrary, macro is pretty much perfected in SC2, there is some variance at the top, but it's pretty small, it seems like you are unknowingly describing BW, where there were considerably more "macro cycles" than in SC2
enjoyed this
Thank you :-)
Great video!
I think that StarCraft would be a better game if it included the feature of procedurally generated maps as an option, but kept the ladder and tournaments on a fixed pool of custom hand-made maps like it is now. The advantage of having the procedurally generated maps as an option would be for new players to train on, so that they aren't learning tricks or strategies specific to the maps that happen to be in the current map pool, but are instead developing real StarCraft skills that work regardless of what map they're on. A total unpredictability of what the map will be like would ensure this. Another advantage would be that "new" maps would keep on being produced indefinitely after the game is no longer supported by Blizzard or the community.
However, in tourneys, players need a solid idea of exactly what the field of play will be like to ensure that the few random elements in a StarCraft game are as controlled as possible so as to ensure fair tournament play.
A really interesting idea! I know for me I try not to veto maps even if I think they don't favor my race, just because I want to focus on building general StarCraft skills.
AVEX and I had an interesting discussion about this, as well; you can find it somewhere below in the comments.
I play a lot of rts games, but mostly singleplayer aside from casual sc2 ladder years ago. I'd always wondered why other games didn't have the auto build toggle from AoM/T. Although you mentioned age three doesn't have auto build queue, was this change just to increase the skill ceiling of macro?
This feature defenetly depends on skill lvl. Auto que is great for begginers, but as an intermediate player i hardly would ever use auto que if it existed in age 2 since i usually manage my macro such that i only have enough resources to build units one at a time if that. If i do not have the resources to build one unit but i want to build a villager i dont have to worry about unauto queuing a building to prioritize where my resources go. It would only be useful later game where resources are abundant due to huge economies.
Autuqueue lowers the skill ceiling but more importantly it flattens out the skill learning curve on macro, making it hard for anyone to differentiate themselves based on their macro ability. This means games must be decided on something else, which usually ended up being imbalanced unit interactions, which frustrated folks.
You mind trying out a game called LittlrWarGame? Its a browser RTS run on HTML 5 almost specifically intended for beginners, or those entirely new to RTS.
I enjoyed this analysis alot! As a former rts player, this was a fun listen!
But as a former rts player, I want to voice something. You said that lowering mechanical skills are going to make the game makes no difference to casual players. I heavily disagree with that. I don't see how anyone in a post-divekick era still use this narrative.
The reason why that's even remotely true atm is because for the people who had a problem with mechanical floor, they have already left. Probably moved on to grand strategy. Reason I play Total War so much. So there's a clear bias here in the data set.
The problem with lowering skill floor is that it changes the target audience, not the enjoyment of the overall crowd. For example, a game that makes macro simplified to execute, but still has warcraft 3's complexity, is great for me. I've stopped picking up fighters or rts because I'm not interested in trying to master the execution of a system. I just want to strategise and out theorise you. I want to outsmart you with tactics and micro. And I can't do that in SC, because 20apm is not going to get me anywhere in the ladder, especially since you're not always going to be matched with another who had 20apm.
It was fine when I was younger. And I very much understand the joy of a system rewarding you for execution mastery, I fell in love with the guitar for the same reasons. But as it stands, RTS are no longer the genre for me.
And that's the problem you have with "casual". That word comes in too many flavour. There's a saying: all the happy family are the same, but the unhappy ones are different in their unique way. And RTS is a tight knit family, just like FGC.
I'm still waiting for the game that makes me feel the excitement of being cheesy proxy freak that puts a barrack right outside your ramp in 7 minutes. I missed forcing players to build towers so they waste resources. I missed stealing your creep so my hero is stronger than yours. I missed rts, but it's no longer the genre for me, purely because of the mechanical floor.
I think both types of map (rng and fixed) are good ideas. Would be nice to watch professional players showing their flexibility on rng maps.
I would disagree a bit about maps in sc2: when a weird ass map gets created there is a clear dominant strategy gets designed by smart players for that specific map. Because of that you can't really say that "the map brings in diversity" because there is 1 dominant strategy that overshadows every other one.
Also, the macromechanics are often time get confused with QoL changes. For example rally points and 12+ unit selection are not the same as mule mechanic or chronoboost - aside from being unique to each race and adding some flavor as well as needed skill cap increase, they feel rewarding when you are on top of your game. There is a reason why "water your plants in 10 minutes" mechanic is one of the most popular and addicting design things there is.
There is a reason why in basketball there are dribbling and running and jumping "mechanics" - because they make the game less boring, high skill cap and just overall much better, in a very similar way as supply depots and injects. If someone wants to read somethere about this concept there is this article www.teamliquid.net/blogs/493111-apm-spam-spectrum
I played many games in my life and starcraft 2 has one of the most intuitive and straightforward UI and controls. Not 100% perfect (like "resiege at this point" or "relift the building here" would've been nice QoLs to have), but it's still miles better than pretty much other RTS there is.
Counting the features of AoM as something that got added and removed from the AoE series is like considering heroes and creeps as a feature that got added and removed from the XarCraft series.
By the way, did you play WarCraft 3 before making this video. It would give you some insight into the history of the Blizzard map editors, what they tried to do in SC2, and why they went wrong the way they did.
maybe you could compare it to the original StarCraft or broodwar, since back then it wasn't designed as such a competitive game, and the nap editor was more accessible but still very good
29:10 The latency is the same for everyone in a SC2 game, i.e. the highest latency between any 2 players. It's basically the same p2p technology as in AoE2, not a client-server thing. Client-server RTS was a tough nut to crack, Planetary Annihilation did it first IIRC (and still is the only one doing that). AoE2 just favors higher but more consistent latency resulting in relatively laggy network play in general.
Big tournaments have local machines that act as serves as provided by Blizzard. They log into Battle.net, but that's just for authentication AFAIK.
Interesting! Good to know.
I think they considered slowing the game down purely because of how fast army engagements were. Low level players often lose their entire army while their attention is away during a macro phase, just like how your marines killed almost all the high templars before your opponent could pull them back or turn them to archons. Split second engagements are still very much an issue, even after David Kim left the balance team.
Interesting video, didn't think it as deep as a AOE 2 player that came to SC2 after long years of AOE 2.
Thanks! I'd be interested to hear more. Are you referring to the depth of AoE2 or of SC2?
Just saying that I didn't think that much about the impact of a random generated maps, for me the speed is the biggest differences between the game, the ramp-up in AOE2 is much slower then SC2, because you have different ages in AOE2. The unit speed and pathfinding (and 2D) make the game less frustrating and more at the same time, let me explain, at Feudal Age you need to build an army to defend yourself, and that army can easily go accross the map to your enemy base, and it's difficult for the defender to respond effectively since the units have the same speed you won't lose much attacking an enemy.
To come back to the thing of randomly generated maps, it becomes great once you reach Castle Age or Imperial Age, because you start to get long range artillery, and the randomly generated map becomes interesting, placement of Fortress, becomes really important (you don't want a castle that can be attacked from a piece of artillery protected by a forest), so SC2 favors learning how to place buildings and troops on defined maps that change every 4 month, while AOE 2 test you in your ability to adapt to a certain layout;
It may have brought less different strategies but the randomly generated maps tests adaptability.
That makes sense. Thanks for explaining!
Few points:
* I don't see how Microsoft releasing a new game like AoE3, or AoM (which is arguably not even the same series) affects professional players, you make it seem like when AoE3 was released AoE2 was shutdown and all pro players had to adapt. AoE1, AoE2 have all stayed fairly consistent gameplay mechanic wise since release, so an AoE2 pro player doesn't need to relearn anything and since the AoE2 community still survived well past AoE3.
* I'd argue the macro involved in AoE2 is much higher than SC2. (Agreed about AoE3 though not requiring much macro tho, although many AoE fans like to pretend that game doesn't exist). SC2 has dead simple economy management, 2 resources and fairly easy to manage each one. AoE2 has rapidly depleting resources across the map with competitve games reaching ~150 economic units at peak - each of which can easily go idle at any time, as resources exhaust often and require building new economic buildings. Even at the high levels, it's not out of the ordinary for a player to have 30% idle rate during extended battles. Military production is probably the same level as SC2 in level of complexity in management.
* Would have liked to see the differences in micro. I think that's where SC2 high skill ceiling shines over AoE. Units in SC2 are far more responsive and have skills that can be used, the skills alone make the micro so much deeper than AoE.
* It's not that hard to find AoE2 matches, at the time Voobly, third party multiplayer system, had more than a sufficient pop to find games at all skill levels (now there's a remastered official version with ranked mode making it even easier to find matches at all levels)
This shit is genius. Excellent idea & presentation.
You can't compare editors from a game from 1999 to a game from 2010. AoE2 editor should be compared to broodwar instead.
AoE2 also came out in 1999...
@@angryedgelord4111 uhm, this is exactly why I'd rather compare it to broodwar
what was the book called again?i can't make out the title . thx
I recommend you check out Prismata! It's basically a turn-based strat game that seems mostly inspired by rts's. I think you're interested in the right things in order to be blown away by it :D It's seriously amazing
It has one of the most amazing ways of making each game different while keeping it balanced :D You should really delve into it man, even if it'd be too stressing to get good at it there's loads to learn for people interested in games!
Thanks! If I have time, I will check it out. :-)
yogibear47 Awesome!
Really nice video, man! :D
I feel like you shouldn't put AoM in the same basket as AoE. It would be like putting WarCraft and StarCraft as the same "Craft" series. It feels wrong. :/
About the comparison between players, it's worth noting that Korea has a mature professional scene of StarCraft (and eSports in general), whereas Age of Empires never had that level of dedication in its lifetime. Your comparisons between games may still be valid but the comparison between the players should be taken with a grain of salt.
Thanks for your comments!
With regard to AoM / AoE, I thought about this quite a bit. On the one hand, at the time, AoM did feature a number of unique features that made people consider it a spin-off, because the notion of stuff like god powers was a foreign concept to RTS players at the time. On the other hand, I think if we look at the series as a whole in hindsight (AoEII -> AoM -> AoEIII), we can see a progression in design philosophy that makes AoM seem more like a clear member of the same basket rather than just a spin-off. Simplifying macro mechanics, reduced importance of expanding out onto the map, reduced focus on the matchmaking and online platform - these all go in one direction from AoEII to AoM to AoEIII. However, I can definitely see your point though about splitting off AoM and viewing it more as a spin-off outside the AoEII/AoEIII basket, especially with the inclusion of Titans in AoT.
Great point regarding professionalization; I talk about this briefly in Part II with regard to the professionalization of RTS games and how that's affected the competitive scene. I watched Day9's Mental Checklist video the other day and was amazed that someone had taken a concept that I had deeply internalized (but never consciously thought about) and actually fleshed it out, given it nomenclature, given folks an idea of how to start doing it, etc.
I never played it without AoT, so AoM to me is exactly like WarCraft III is to StarCraft: hero units, less space to think and greater need of micro instead of macro.
And I never played AoEIII too, since the appeal was lost to me with its 3D engine & weird camera. But seeing the battles, it looks like a game that aged well, at least mechanically.
I hope you upload part 2 soon! :D
18:40 "I don't have rights to SCK's footage" If you're analysing something about a match between him and you, you're allowed to do so. It's transformative commentary content. Should be legal. :)
Cortex Roleplay is awesome.
I've always thought that the starcraft editor was harder to understand then the warcraft one. Which is weird considering the same developer and similar style of games. The AoE2, while intuitive is really basic and I just felt like it was lacking in control. Given how old it is though that might not be so surprising.
Just some ramble on the map editors :)
SC1 editor was intuitive. SC2 editor was designed to give the user control over everything. but more options = more complexity.
:-)
Exactly.
Can you touch up on Age of Empires Micro interactions? I have no idea wtf they're doing when they fight and I see people just moving their army across the map while getting hit
Sure thing. I'll be talking about this in part two. It's mostly that attack move either didn't exist or didn't function correctly prior to AoE3 1.01 (or 1.02, one of those).
***** Thanks for the response. Im curious in a sense as to what would, in the case of AOE, be considered technical or how do you tell good players apart from others aside from decision making?
@Rajmund Csombordi Dodging enemy arrows or catapults only important in high elo? Why lol.
There is a bit more micro in aoe2, when there's a fight in the feudal/castle age between a group of archers where people cancel the animations to fire faster and also dodge arrows, also to take over hils for a damage bonus.
Kiting is also very important, especially with Cav Archers.
what are those protoss units with a shield in the begining?
immortals?
I think you mean the immortals? wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Immortal_(Legacy_of_the_Void)
Interesting video. A few of the assumptions about the developers are a bit off, but otherwise a good analysis from an outsider.
Can you please write the name of the book? I can't understand the first part, only "... and the sword"
Here you go: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chrysanthemum_and_the_Sword
Thanks!
Why was there zerg hatchery in the game against Innovation? I thought you both played Terran?
AOE vs SC is like Go vs Chess. One emphasizes strategy and the other speed. A computer can easily play SC better than human because it can do everything faster. A computer will have a hard time playing AOE because it have to choose where to place every resource collecting and defensive building.
AOE II HD's AI was much tougher than original AOE II because improvement in AI learning and computer speed in the 14 years since AOE II
Peizxcv except even the hardedt difficulty on sc2 cant beat a platinum or diamond player, sure it might have perfect micro and macro but sc is a lot about decisions and unit compositions which the computer is bad at making
i was diamond back in wol when i played sc2 and i could beat 6 hardest AIs (6v1, to be clear) by myself on some maps. a single one was more like silver level at best. the AOE2HD ai is such much harder...
Peizxcv the ai is not a good measure for difficulty of any game. Sc2 has a much much higher skill ceiling, and skill floor for that matter, than aoe2 has. It's not even close. Also the ai in sc2 can be beat by nearly any simple cheese and is only like maybe gold level play at best.
B33b3 Go read up AI playing Go and you'd realize SC don't require the AI to make much strategic decisions.
well i was fucking diamond on season one (there was nothing higher than diamond, in fact at the very beginning platinum was the highest rank) with zero losses (climbed from bronze) and you can't play the AI on ladder. and i've play the shit out of broodwar back then. you don't have to defend starcraft from me, i know it inside and out (well, up to WOL, i quit before the zerg expansion)
skill ceiling aside (i was never that good at AOE so i can't comment on that), the skill floor is much, MUCH higher on aoe. it's much more complex a difficult to learn and you have a shit ton more stuff to manage. starcraft is more micro-intensive, but the macro is so fucking easy you learn it in a week. and there are also cheap and powerful strategies even a complete noob can pull off effective, like 4gate and some other crap.
they're different games, AOE is more strategy and management, starcraft is more tactics and execution (micro). lately i've been way more into the former.
should check out keen gaming for AOM games and guides
I stopped playing SC2 because the whole competitive environment was too hectic and left me frustrated most of the time.
I tried the map editor, but it was next to useless. I love the map editors in games such as AoE (1 and 2, not 3), Command and Conquer Red Alert 2, Star Craft 1, Heroes of Might and Magic IV.
Now I haven't played SC2 in years, but getting back into it would mean investing time that I don't have. You need to play constantly to remain good.
That's why I like SC2. "Good" is relative, thanks to matchmaking. If you got worse you'll still get matched against people of similar skill. I jumped back in, and ended up in bronze, but improved and climbed up.
i don't much care for matchmaking. say you're high diamond or low masters. you're easily top 5%, but still gets wrecked 50% of the time. you don't feel like you're as good as you are. you feel you're average no matter how good or bad you are, and that sucks.
GraveUypo that's literally the point. The matchmaking is designed to match you in 50/50 win rate chance games because it tries to put you against evenly matched players.
The beauty of sc2 is that there are people playing for 10years straight and are still in Gold
What was the editor at the 1:30 Mark?
Good video, although I strongly disagree with you on the editor, I find the SC2 editor a butt-load easier than the AoE editors. Making a simple map in Broodwar or SC2 is *incredibly* simple. Whereas accomplishing the same thing in AoE editors is much, *MUCH* harder.
There's a reason there's been so much more done with the Broodwar and SC2 editors (either one) than all the AoE editors together. The AoE editors have a learning cliff, instead of a learning curve, it's just not all that high. The SC2 editor in particular has a much gentler learning curve, it's just that it accelerates exponentially and goes on pretty much forever.
Thanks for your comments! :-) Did you ever play custom games back in AoEII? There was a huge amount of content and a big community around building scenarios.
yogibear47 Loads! I have played thousands of hours of AoK, but there's nothing like the breadth of content that's available for Broodwar and SC2. Blizzard's editors have spawned whole other genres (eg: MOBAs, which started in Broodwar and were perfected with Warcraft 3).
The AoE titles had loads of stuff - but not compared to Starcraft.
Well said.
Thank you! I really appreciate it :-)
1:40 Because of the fact that there are different races in starcraft, it is near impossible to balance on a randomly generated maps. Talking about siege tank positions, or how easy it is to take a third, as well as rush distance and amount of open terrain to enclosed spaces can heavily affect game balance. I even veto some of the current maps cause they have too large open spaces, or because there are too many entrances to my natural/third for ling runbys. And... then there is tempests and liberators.
4:18 SO TRUE
10:10 didnt you say u were masters? I'm masters and that was a massive change. Also... that new patch...
21:05 This is untrue. With the new expansion, legacy of the void, game speed is identical to real speed.
The game speed thing is completely out of date :/ That was HotS, not LotV.
Also, for when you were talking about the speed pros play the game at, why didnt you insert some footage of pro players FPV and keyboard? I could watch hours of those :P
I was Master's in Season 2 of Legacy and I'm currently Diamond. I think until you get to GM, small tweaks like queen range don't have much of an impact.
I'm referring to the game speed on 'faster' as compared to 'normal'; faster is 1.38x normal speed. The physical speed of the game didn't change in Legacy AFAIK, just the way numbers are presented to players (e.g. APM).
Sadly, I don't know own any footage of pro players playing in first person. :-)
"As a result, it will take you the same amount of real life seconds to build the same structure in hots and lotv" - This is what I'm focusing on when I say "game speed", the physical speed of playing the game. Not what the in-game clock says.
Thank you for your links to pro-gamer VODs. Unfortunately, I do not own this footage, meaning I cannot use it without explicitly acquiring permission from the rights-holder. For a variety of reasons, I choose not to do this.
yogibear47 as a content creator you are free to use snippets of other youtuber's videos without their permission for the purpose of eduction, criticism, commenting, etc. and you are commenting on it. If you state a source and/or link in the description you can use parts of a video in yours no problem. No need to worry about that.
Also, it is not like you are going to show the entire 3 minute video, only like 4-5 seconds of it.
looking forward to your pt2 :D
Is it bad if a game has fun design maps and then also comepetive maps?
It's not bad, it's hard to make. For example the most fun and experimental Map in starcraft2 was golden wall
I'm sorry, what was the name of the book?
You could draw a similar comparison between LoL and Dota.
Jossyis nnh
I'm literally drinking a chrysanthemum cocktail right now. this ought to be good.
:-) Hope you enjoyed it!
how is it even possible that a person "deeply involved with RTS games" isn't deeply involved with the Starcraft games? that is interesting
Because there exists other non-Starcraft RTS games.
Outside of Starcraft and AoE, there's Command and Conquer, Dawn of War, and Warcraft, just to name a few.
interesting vid
Thanks! I really appreciate it :-)
Awesome video, just a side note it is pronounced Elo not E.L.O, Elo is the guy's name that came up with the system, not an acronym.
Thank you, I didn't know that! Appreciate you letting me know.