Have you guys noticed how popular thrones are in computer game expansion titles?
WarCraft 3 had its Frozen Throne, Titan Quest had an Immortal Throne, and Rise of Nations had Thrones and Patriots.
Just a random thought I thought I'd throw out there. :]
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
End of Nations and Cooperative Multiplayer in an RTS
I'm loving the StarCraft 2 beta right now, but I do love the RTS genre as a whole, and there's a recently-announced game which has caught my attention and it's about time I talked about it.
That game is End of Nations. Players work together to stop the evil Order of Nations (although I assume that there will be multiple factions for players, to allow player-vs-player).
It's pitched as an 'MMORTS', and to my knowledge, it's not the first time that an RTS has been combined with a persistent world.
Nonetheless, this is an area of RTS games which I rarely delve into, and so I decided to look a little further into what End of Nations is all about.
I must admit, I'm also a little bit tickled by the fact that End of Nations shares a very similar game with a certain amazing RTS game. ;)
Although I'm sure that there will be Player vs Player in End of Nations, I'm intrigued by the fact that there'll be a strong element of Player-vs-Environment and cooperation with other human players. To me, it seems different from anything I've experienced recently:
Red Alert 3: This was the first RTS I played which I felt really 'got' co-op with two human players. The game was designed from the ground-up for this specific purpose. Of course, RA3 has many shortcomings, but the concept is there. The level design was much more than 'melee' with two human players - each player often had a specific role to play in the mission.
One of the more memorable missions involved one player controlling only a giant robot, while that player's ally controlled a more conventional base and army, trying to protect the robot from the units which it is vulnerable against. It was just good old-fashioned "TIMMY SMASH" fun. :]
Dawn of War 2: This game also had a co-op singleplayer, but it felt much more 'tacked on' compared to Red Alert 3. Essentially, it's the same experience as playing the campaign solo. The only difference is that an ally controls half of the squads, and you control the other half.
StarCraft 2: When I saw the 'Co-op vs the AI' as an option in Bnet 2.0, I was excited. Many casual gamers (myself included) love just getting some friends together and doing some good ol' comp-stomping. Unfortunately, comp-stomp games in StarCraft don't really offer any additional value beyond the standard melee experience. With StarCraft 2, I was under the impression that Blizzard was creating some unique Co-op vs the AI modes specifically to appeal to casual gamers.
Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. I'm not too bothered, though - there'll always be plenty of Use-Map-Settings games, and melee vs the AI will still be fun once the harder-difficulty AIs become available.
End of Nations interests me because of how it seems to really revel in the idea of players working together to overcome the AI. I really get the impression that most of the game is built around this premise.
'Boss battles' in an RTS game aren't anything new, but what IS new to me, is having this multiplayer situation whereby one player alone cannot take down this boss, no matter what their unit composition is - it takes teamwork and different players specialised in different areas to fell one of these gigantic 'crawler' bosses in End of Nations.
I may not have played a lot of World of WarCraft, but during my time with that MMORPG, I really appreciated how the different elements of a party come together to accomplish quests. If End of Nations can capture that spirit of teamwork and specialised roles in a 'party', then I think it could be a winner.
Even when you're not teaming up to take on crazy-big mobile fortresses, there's something appealing about the knowledge that even though you're just comp-stomping (taking out the Order of Nations' less-impressive minions), you're still making an impact on the world. You're still fighting the power, gaining experience, leveling up, and all that good stuff.
With End of Nations, I'm not after a finely-balanced multiplayer masterpiece like StarCraft 2. I'm excited for End of Nations for almost the opposite reason: the prospect of a persistent RTS world where me and my buddies can have a unique, casual co-op experience, having a rewarding time simply by blowing up AI opponents - I don't feel that there are many RTS games out there which can make that claim.
So far, the worst part about the game is the fact that it'll require a subscription cost. As much as I love the concept, I don't know if I love it enough to pay for it on a monthly basis. Hopefully, there'll be some kind of free-play option, or Trion Worlds and Petroglyph studios will change their mind about the game requiring subscription at all :].
Personally, I think that the developers are taking a bit of a risk making this a subscription-based game. An MMORTS is still a relatively unpopular MMO subgenre, and the fact that End of Nations' graphics aren't particularly snazzy may turn off some gamers who do not immediately see the potential for fun that the game has to offer.
I'm thrilled at the prospect of different players with specialised armies working together to take down the foe. It seems like more than just a 4v4 comp stomp in StarCraft, it feels closer to a proper battle, with various marshals controlling different elements of the same army. For daring to do something like this, I certainly hope that End of Nations is a success.
I'll be keeping my eye on this one.
That game is End of Nations. Players work together to stop the evil Order of Nations (although I assume that there will be multiple factions for players, to allow player-vs-player).
It's pitched as an 'MMORTS', and to my knowledge, it's not the first time that an RTS has been combined with a persistent world.
Nonetheless, this is an area of RTS games which I rarely delve into, and so I decided to look a little further into what End of Nations is all about.
I must admit, I'm also a little bit tickled by the fact that End of Nations shares a very similar game with a certain amazing RTS game. ;)
Although I'm sure that there will be Player vs Player in End of Nations, I'm intrigued by the fact that there'll be a strong element of Player-vs-Environment and cooperation with other human players. To me, it seems different from anything I've experienced recently:
Red Alert 3: This was the first RTS I played which I felt really 'got' co-op with two human players. The game was designed from the ground-up for this specific purpose. Of course, RA3 has many shortcomings, but the concept is there. The level design was much more than 'melee' with two human players - each player often had a specific role to play in the mission.
One of the more memorable missions involved one player controlling only a giant robot, while that player's ally controlled a more conventional base and army, trying to protect the robot from the units which it is vulnerable against. It was just good old-fashioned "TIMMY SMASH" fun. :]
Dawn of War 2: This game also had a co-op singleplayer, but it felt much more 'tacked on' compared to Red Alert 3. Essentially, it's the same experience as playing the campaign solo. The only difference is that an ally controls half of the squads, and you control the other half.
StarCraft 2: When I saw the 'Co-op vs the AI' as an option in Bnet 2.0, I was excited. Many casual gamers (myself included) love just getting some friends together and doing some good ol' comp-stomping. Unfortunately, comp-stomp games in StarCraft don't really offer any additional value beyond the standard melee experience. With StarCraft 2, I was under the impression that Blizzard was creating some unique Co-op vs the AI modes specifically to appeal to casual gamers.
Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. I'm not too bothered, though - there'll always be plenty of Use-Map-Settings games, and melee vs the AI will still be fun once the harder-difficulty AIs become available.
End of Nations interests me because of how it seems to really revel in the idea of players working together to overcome the AI. I really get the impression that most of the game is built around this premise.
'Boss battles' in an RTS game aren't anything new, but what IS new to me, is having this multiplayer situation whereby one player alone cannot take down this boss, no matter what their unit composition is - it takes teamwork and different players specialised in different areas to fell one of these gigantic 'crawler' bosses in End of Nations.
I may not have played a lot of World of WarCraft, but during my time with that MMORPG, I really appreciated how the different elements of a party come together to accomplish quests. If End of Nations can capture that spirit of teamwork and specialised roles in a 'party', then I think it could be a winner.
Even when you're not teaming up to take on crazy-big mobile fortresses, there's something appealing about the knowledge that even though you're just comp-stomping (taking out the Order of Nations' less-impressive minions), you're still making an impact on the world. You're still fighting the power, gaining experience, leveling up, and all that good stuff.
With End of Nations, I'm not after a finely-balanced multiplayer masterpiece like StarCraft 2. I'm excited for End of Nations for almost the opposite reason: the prospect of a persistent RTS world where me and my buddies can have a unique, casual co-op experience, having a rewarding time simply by blowing up AI opponents - I don't feel that there are many RTS games out there which can make that claim.
So far, the worst part about the game is the fact that it'll require a subscription cost. As much as I love the concept, I don't know if I love it enough to pay for it on a monthly basis. Hopefully, there'll be some kind of free-play option, or Trion Worlds and Petroglyph studios will change their mind about the game requiring subscription at all :].
Personally, I think that the developers are taking a bit of a risk making this a subscription-based game. An MMORTS is still a relatively unpopular MMO subgenre, and the fact that End of Nations' graphics aren't particularly snazzy may turn off some gamers who do not immediately see the potential for fun that the game has to offer.
I'm thrilled at the prospect of different players with specialised armies working together to take down the foe. It seems like more than just a 4v4 comp stomp in StarCraft, it feels closer to a proper battle, with various marshals controlling different elements of the same army. For daring to do something like this, I certainly hope that End of Nations is a success.
I'll be keeping my eye on this one.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Unit of the Week: The Immortal
ImmortalThe Protoss Immortal deals 20 damage, with an additional 30 damage to armoured targets.
This means that the Immortal can kill a Mengsk Statue in just three hits!
Frickin' Mengsk - what a jerk!
Kerrigan Spares Koprulu Sector for 4 Years to Tech to Ultralisks
Kerrigan, Queen of Blades, announced today that the reason why she didn't wipe out both the Terrans and the Protoss after winning decisively at the battle of Omega was because she wanted to tech to Ultralisks.
"I never get to use Ultralisks," said Kerrigan. "But since I was going to win, I thought that I'd have some fun."
Kerrigan specifically cited the Anabolic Synthesis and Chitnous Plating upgrades as the reason why the length of the Zerg absence was four years.
"Also, level three ground carapace," she added.
"It takes a little while, but only then do Ultralisks really start being worth that 300 minerals and 200 gas."
Arcturus Mengsk, Emperor of the Terran Dominion, said that he was cool with Kerrigan sparing him.
"She could totally have killed us all," Mengsk said. "Me and Artanis were about to type 'gg', when Kerrigan asked if we'd let her tech to Ultralisks."
"I knew that it would take a while for those suckers to build, so me and Artanis figured that we could rebuild our bases in that time."
Admiral DuGalle was not available for comment.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Infestor's Neural Parasite ability vs Protoss
Wow, I can't believe it's already been six days since my last blog!
Here's some more SC2 footage for y'all. It's me (Blue Zerg) fighting some Protoss opponent and showing off the Infestor's Neural Parasite ability.
Video time! The music is actually from a game called 'Bayonetta' which I haven't played, but I absolutely love this music. It's so....boopy! And I feel that it suits the action in its own particular way. :]
It's a very nifty spell - for 50 Energy, the Infestor mind controls a target enemy unit for 10 seconds (slightly shorter on the 'Faster' game speed).
Neural Parasite is very strong for commandeering big, powerful units like the Colossus, but there are some important things to note about it.
First, it has to be channeled, meaning the the Infestor can't actually take any other actions during the course of spell's duration.
Second, it takes a little bit of time to cast. As you saw from the video, there's an animation of the Infestor launching a tendril at its target, and the enemy unit doesn't actually come under your control until the tendril reaches it. Although it's not a lot of time, it does give the enemy just that little bit of warning to respond.
Third, it doesn't have a whole lot of range. Although I haven't done testing, it only seems to have about 6 (maybe 7) range.
This worked out alright in the video above, because my Protoss opponent had not gotten the Extended Thermal Lances upgrade, meaning that his Colossi only had 6 range, as opposed to 9.
However, you can see how this'd be a problem in a ZvP matchup. In a tier 2 fight, Infestors are the Zerg counter to Colossi (unless you go for Mutalisks, but Protoss are getting more and more fond of mixing in a better ratio of Stalkers/Sentries in their armies). So, once the Protoss gets Extended Thermal Lances for his Colossi, it becomes very difficult for Infestors to actually get close enough to cast Neural Parasite on their towering adversaries.
Usually, what happens is that you can't move the rest of your army (usually Roaches/Hydralisks) close enough to the Colossi because the Protoss would have a line of Zealots/Stalkers/Immortals/Sentries as a buffer, allowing the Colossi to rip through your army without your damage-dealing Hydralisks able to make a reply. And in the case of this article, with your Infestors unable to get close enough to cast Neural Parasite and just getting confused behind your line of Hydralisks.
Now, Infestors have burrowed movement, but the problem is that Protoss are also fond of bringing along at least one Observer with their army. You only need a Robotics Facility to build an Observer, and since you already have a Robo Fac (since you'd be getting Colossi), it's not uncommon to see a couple Observers being produced, as well.
So, you can't have your Infestors preceding your army, since they'd be killed first (and at 100 minerals and 150 gas each, they're fairly expensive), but if they stay behind your army, they won't be able to cast Neural Parasite on the targets that matter the most - the Colossi.
Perhaps the best response to Colossi at Tier 2 would be to get Corruptors. Phoenixes don't enjoy a damage bonus against them (unlike Mutalisks), and Corruptors, with their 22 damage vs Massive targets (which is what a Colossus is) might be very effective. I bring up this thought because Terrans are fond of using Vikings against Colossi, and it seems to be a potent counter.
Tech-switching as a Zerg can be relatively easy, but making the transition to Spire (unless you opened Tier 2 that way) can be a little tricky. It costs 200 gas, and takes 100 seconds to build - quite long. On top of that, each Corruptor is 100 gas each.
I find that as a Zerg player, all that gas would have been used to fend off early Protoss aggression with your core of Roaches and Hydralisks. Such an army of Roaches, Hydralisks, and Corruptors would be ideal to fend off that mid-game Protoss army of Zealots/Stalkers/Immortals/Sentries/Colossi, but I'll need to play more games to see if it's really viable :].
Here's some more SC2 footage for y'all. It's me (Blue Zerg) fighting some Protoss opponent and showing off the Infestor's Neural Parasite ability.
Video time! The music is actually from a game called 'Bayonetta' which I haven't played, but I absolutely love this music. It's so....boopy! And I feel that it suits the action in its own particular way. :]
It's a very nifty spell - for 50 Energy, the Infestor mind controls a target enemy unit for 10 seconds (slightly shorter on the 'Faster' game speed).
Neural Parasite is very strong for commandeering big, powerful units like the Colossus, but there are some important things to note about it.
First, it has to be channeled, meaning the the Infestor can't actually take any other actions during the course of spell's duration.
Second, it takes a little bit of time to cast. As you saw from the video, there's an animation of the Infestor launching a tendril at its target, and the enemy unit doesn't actually come under your control until the tendril reaches it. Although it's not a lot of time, it does give the enemy just that little bit of warning to respond.
Third, it doesn't have a whole lot of range. Although I haven't done testing, it only seems to have about 6 (maybe 7) range.
This worked out alright in the video above, because my Protoss opponent had not gotten the Extended Thermal Lances upgrade, meaning that his Colossi only had 6 range, as opposed to 9.
However, you can see how this'd be a problem in a ZvP matchup. In a tier 2 fight, Infestors are the Zerg counter to Colossi (unless you go for Mutalisks, but Protoss are getting more and more fond of mixing in a better ratio of Stalkers/Sentries in their armies). So, once the Protoss gets Extended Thermal Lances for his Colossi, it becomes very difficult for Infestors to actually get close enough to cast Neural Parasite on their towering adversaries.
Usually, what happens is that you can't move the rest of your army (usually Roaches/Hydralisks) close enough to the Colossi because the Protoss would have a line of Zealots/Stalkers/Immortals/Sentries as a buffer, allowing the Colossi to rip through your army without your damage-dealing Hydralisks able to make a reply. And in the case of this article, with your Infestors unable to get close enough to cast Neural Parasite and just getting confused behind your line of Hydralisks.
Now, Infestors have burrowed movement, but the problem is that Protoss are also fond of bringing along at least one Observer with their army. You only need a Robotics Facility to build an Observer, and since you already have a Robo Fac (since you'd be getting Colossi), it's not uncommon to see a couple Observers being produced, as well.
So, you can't have your Infestors preceding your army, since they'd be killed first (and at 100 minerals and 150 gas each, they're fairly expensive), but if they stay behind your army, they won't be able to cast Neural Parasite on the targets that matter the most - the Colossi.
Perhaps the best response to Colossi at Tier 2 would be to get Corruptors. Phoenixes don't enjoy a damage bonus against them (unlike Mutalisks), and Corruptors, with their 22 damage vs Massive targets (which is what a Colossus is) might be very effective. I bring up this thought because Terrans are fond of using Vikings against Colossi, and it seems to be a potent counter.
Tech-switching as a Zerg can be relatively easy, but making the transition to Spire (unless you opened Tier 2 that way) can be a little tricky. It costs 200 gas, and takes 100 seconds to build - quite long. On top of that, each Corruptor is 100 gas each.
I find that as a Zerg player, all that gas would have been used to fend off early Protoss aggression with your core of Roaches and Hydralisks. Such an army of Roaches, Hydralisks, and Corruptors would be ideal to fend off that mid-game Protoss army of Zealots/Stalkers/Immortals/Sentries/Colossi, but I'll need to play more games to see if it's really viable :].
Saturday, March 6, 2010
State of Zerg vs Zerg in StarCraft 2
Ah, mirror matchups. Probably everybody's least favourite matchup, but I don't believe that any mirror matchup is as infamous as Zerg vs Zerg (ZvZ).
This particular matchup got its bad reputation from StarCraft: Brood War, where games rarely last longer than 10 minutes, and the only combat units one would see are Zerglings, Mutalisks, and Scourge.
In StarCraft 2, there are some similarities, but also some differences.
For starters, Zergling play is a lot less frequent in StarCraft 2. This is because Roaches, a new Zerg unit, just beats Zerglings so easily that it is not as cost-effective to build Zerglings as it is to build Roaches, despite the fact that Roaches cost 25 gas each (they cost as much as SC1 Hydralisks at the moment - 75 minerals 25 gas 1 supply). The default 2 armour of Roaches also makes Zerglings fairly ineffectual against them, unless in great numbers.
Because of this, the early game of a StarCraft 2 Zerg vs Zerg is dominated by massing Roaches.
If one player tries to get Zerglings, they will be killed by Roaches and then that player will, himself be defeated. If one player tries to tech, she won't have many Roaches and will be squashed by the player who stuck with churning out Roaches early in the game.
A video of me microing Roaches and Hydralisks with Burrow vs enemy Zerglings.
The monotony of Roaches only breaks when players tech to Lair. Despite the power of Roaches, there are three main incentives to tech to Lair:
Hydralisks are essential because they have 5 range (6 when upgraded). Roaches only have 3 range.
This means that once you reach a certain mass of Roaches, they become rather unwieldy and will become stuck behind each other, unable to actually attack the enemy due to their short range. Because there isn't a whole lot of open space in the maps of StarCraft 2, this issue can be quite noticeable. Therefore, you need Hydralisks to ensure that your damage output is maximised against the enemy at all times - you want as many of your units dealing damage as possible.
However, Hydralisks are fairly frail and Roaches are very powerful against them. Despite their superior damage output, Roaches will very easily beat Hydralisks for cost, but a mix of Roaches and Hydralisks will beat a pure-Roach army.
A video of me (the red Zerg) defeating a pure Roach army by using a mix of Roaches and Hydralisks. Notice how a good deal of Blue's Roaches don't see combat until his front line has been destroyed.
Mutalisks are only useful if you can catch your opponent completely off-guard, but most Zerg players immediately go about transitioning into Hydralisks upon reaching their Lair. Given how effective Hydralisks are against Mutalisks, it makes going for Mutas in an SC2 ZvZ a very risky prospect. More often than not, it is your opponent who will come out the better for it.
In the ZvZs I've seen and played thus far, games can certainly end quite quickly. As with Brood War, there seems to be little margin for error, as even small mistakes like losing your starting Overlord to the enemy's Queen can set you back quite a bit.
However, it is also not too uncommon to see Zerg players taking their natural expansion and the game lasting for a decent amount of time - certainly longer than the 10-minute average of a Brood War ZvZ at least.
I have yet to see a very lategame ZvZ, but I'm curious to know how it'd look like. I believe that after Roaches and Hydralisks, Infestors are the next combat unit to shake things up. Fungal Growth is useful for tying down enemy Roaches and Hydras, preventing them from getting into combat and doing decent damage in an area.
Based on early Beta impressions, ZvZ seems like it has the potential for much longer games than in Brood War. Although massing only Roaches in the early game may seem boring, it's worth noting that there was very little variety in Brood War ZvZ to begin with, and I believe that SC2's ZvZ, like BW's ZvZ, will be something of an acquired taste.
This particular matchup got its bad reputation from StarCraft: Brood War, where games rarely last longer than 10 minutes, and the only combat units one would see are Zerglings, Mutalisks, and Scourge.
In StarCraft 2, there are some similarities, but also some differences.
For starters, Zergling play is a lot less frequent in StarCraft 2. This is because Roaches, a new Zerg unit, just beats Zerglings so easily that it is not as cost-effective to build Zerglings as it is to build Roaches, despite the fact that Roaches cost 25 gas each (they cost as much as SC1 Hydralisks at the moment - 75 minerals 25 gas 1 supply). The default 2 armour of Roaches also makes Zerglings fairly ineffectual against them, unless in great numbers.
Because of this, the early game of a StarCraft 2 Zerg vs Zerg is dominated by massing Roaches.
If one player tries to get Zerglings, they will be killed by Roaches and then that player will, himself be defeated. If one player tries to tech, she won't have many Roaches and will be squashed by the player who stuck with churning out Roaches early in the game.
A video of me microing Roaches and Hydralisks with Burrow vs enemy Zerglings.
The monotony of Roaches only breaks when players tech to Lair. Despite the power of Roaches, there are three main incentives to tech to Lair:
- Burrow upgrade for Zerg. This allows Roaches to Burrow, but Roaches also regenerate extra-fast while Burrowed, allowing you to combat a greater number of enemy Roaches with fewer of your own.
- Overseers. You can only build these guys upon hitting a Lair, and you need them to detect enemy Roaches in case they have Burrow.
- Hydralisks. These are one of the most important units in Zerg tier 2, and they're the first unit to break up the otherwise pure-Roach army composition of the early game.
Hydralisks are essential because they have 5 range (6 when upgraded). Roaches only have 3 range.
This means that once you reach a certain mass of Roaches, they become rather unwieldy and will become stuck behind each other, unable to actually attack the enemy due to their short range. Because there isn't a whole lot of open space in the maps of StarCraft 2, this issue can be quite noticeable. Therefore, you need Hydralisks to ensure that your damage output is maximised against the enemy at all times - you want as many of your units dealing damage as possible.
However, Hydralisks are fairly frail and Roaches are very powerful against them. Despite their superior damage output, Roaches will very easily beat Hydralisks for cost, but a mix of Roaches and Hydralisks will beat a pure-Roach army.
A video of me (the red Zerg) defeating a pure Roach army by using a mix of Roaches and Hydralisks. Notice how a good deal of Blue's Roaches don't see combat until his front line has been destroyed.
Mutalisks are only useful if you can catch your opponent completely off-guard, but most Zerg players immediately go about transitioning into Hydralisks upon reaching their Lair. Given how effective Hydralisks are against Mutalisks, it makes going for Mutas in an SC2 ZvZ a very risky prospect. More often than not, it is your opponent who will come out the better for it.
In the ZvZs I've seen and played thus far, games can certainly end quite quickly. As with Brood War, there seems to be little margin for error, as even small mistakes like losing your starting Overlord to the enemy's Queen can set you back quite a bit.
However, it is also not too uncommon to see Zerg players taking their natural expansion and the game lasting for a decent amount of time - certainly longer than the 10-minute average of a Brood War ZvZ at least.
I have yet to see a very lategame ZvZ, but I'm curious to know how it'd look like. I believe that after Roaches and Hydralisks, Infestors are the next combat unit to shake things up. Fungal Growth is useful for tying down enemy Roaches and Hydras, preventing them from getting into combat and doing decent damage in an area.
Based on early Beta impressions, ZvZ seems like it has the potential for much longer games than in Brood War. Although massing only Roaches in the early game may seem boring, it's worth noting that there was very little variety in Brood War ZvZ to begin with, and I believe that SC2's ZvZ, like BW's ZvZ, will be something of an acquired taste.
A little more on StarCraft 2....
I must admit, when I first played StarCraft 2, my emotions were joy and happiness, but that very quickly gave way to familiarity. After a mere couple games against the 'Very Easy' AI, I felt as though some of the magic was gone.
However, as my last blog post indicates, that soon changed.
As I played more, something most curious happened. I realised that the game actually played differently from how I expected. It's a strange thing - one would imagine that if a game doesn't meet your expectations, it means that it's disappointing. Perhaps in StarCraft 2's case, I wasn't disappointed because the game was too far away from my expectations that I couldn't compare it to what I was expecting the way I had planned. I'm sure that last sentence will make sense if you read it often enough. :]
Each day, I'm seeing new games being played, new strategies being used, and there is such a wonderful sense of discovery and adventure. I feel that this, more than any other reason, is why I love RTS games so much. It can take a long time to 'unpack' a game and really work out what makes it tick, but the experience is a rewarding one.
--------
In other Beta news, I was recently promoted to the 1vs1 Gold League, up from Silver! Personally, I didn't think I was 'good enough' to be playing in the Gold League. Although my first game as a Gold Leaguer was a win against a Platinum Leaguer, I subsequently lost seven of my next ten games. Ouch. However, I've won my last two games, and have even beaten Gold Leaguers who are slightly higher up in their various Divisions than me, so perhaps I can hold my own here.
Time will tell, though the competition is certainly a lot tougher than in the Silver League, and it's taking me longer to find games. Perhaps the majority of players are Silver and below.
I must say though, what does it say about the difficulty of StarCraft 2 if a person like me (and I will be the first to say that I'm really not that good of a player, as much as I love the game) is in the Gold League?
I wonder if there is a certain unknown skill threshold which one has to reach to qualify for a high-level League, or if the Leagues are arranged according to overall player skill? If it's the latter, the game would need a very, very large pool of players to really have seven distinct Leagues - something which is currently lacking in the beta.
And of course, there's the issue of what will happen many years down the road after SC2's release? What if the total number of players eventually declines? Could players find themselves bumped up or down from the League they were in?
Again, these things will take time to discover, but they are my musings of the moment. :]
There are bunch of RTS games which I'm eager to take for a spin, but StarCraft 2 has my attention for the moment. In particular, I have yet to play Supreme Commander, Paraworld, Worldshift, and Universe at War. You can expect me to give reviews and impressions of these games in the months to come (assuming I'm not too preoccupied with StarCraft 2!)
In particular, Paraworld interests me because it seems a lot like the Age of Empires games (which I enjoy very much), except with dinosaurs! Solid and proven gameplay mechanics combined with dinosaurs sounds like a recipe for success in my book. :]
However, as my last blog post indicates, that soon changed.
As I played more, something most curious happened. I realised that the game actually played differently from how I expected. It's a strange thing - one would imagine that if a game doesn't meet your expectations, it means that it's disappointing. Perhaps in StarCraft 2's case, I wasn't disappointed because the game was too far away from my expectations that I couldn't compare it to what I was expecting the way I had planned. I'm sure that last sentence will make sense if you read it often enough. :]
Each day, I'm seeing new games being played, new strategies being used, and there is such a wonderful sense of discovery and adventure. I feel that this, more than any other reason, is why I love RTS games so much. It can take a long time to 'unpack' a game and really work out what makes it tick, but the experience is a rewarding one.
--------
In other Beta news, I was recently promoted to the 1vs1 Gold League, up from Silver! Personally, I didn't think I was 'good enough' to be playing in the Gold League. Although my first game as a Gold Leaguer was a win against a Platinum Leaguer, I subsequently lost seven of my next ten games. Ouch. However, I've won my last two games, and have even beaten Gold Leaguers who are slightly higher up in their various Divisions than me, so perhaps I can hold my own here.
Time will tell, though the competition is certainly a lot tougher than in the Silver League, and it's taking me longer to find games. Perhaps the majority of players are Silver and below.
I must say though, what does it say about the difficulty of StarCraft 2 if a person like me (and I will be the first to say that I'm really not that good of a player, as much as I love the game) is in the Gold League?
I wonder if there is a certain unknown skill threshold which one has to reach to qualify for a high-level League, or if the Leagues are arranged according to overall player skill? If it's the latter, the game would need a very, very large pool of players to really have seven distinct Leagues - something which is currently lacking in the beta.
And of course, there's the issue of what will happen many years down the road after SC2's release? What if the total number of players eventually declines? Could players find themselves bumped up or down from the League they were in?
Again, these things will take time to discover, but they are my musings of the moment. :]
There are bunch of RTS games which I'm eager to take for a spin, but StarCraft 2 has my attention for the moment. In particular, I have yet to play Supreme Commander, Paraworld, Worldshift, and Universe at War. You can expect me to give reviews and impressions of these games in the months to come (assuming I'm not too preoccupied with StarCraft 2!)
In particular, Paraworld interests me because it seems a lot like the Age of Empires games (which I enjoy very much), except with dinosaurs! Solid and proven gameplay mechanics combined with dinosaurs sounds like a recipe for success in my book. :]
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
StarCraft 2 Beta - 3 March '10
As indicated on my list of games I've played, I'm currently in the StarCraft II beta test.
So far, it's proven to be a very challenging experience.
Teamliquid posted a very interesting article which discusses the transition from Brood War to StarCraft II. Incidentally, I came to similar conclusions the day before that article was published.
In a nutshell, I feel that despite worries that StarCraft II will become very micro-oriented (given the supposed 'ease' of macro in SC2) StarCraft II is still an incredibly macro-oriented game.
It definitely doesn't have as much emphasis on micro than WarCraft 3; and in some ways, I feel as though there's less emphasis on micro than Brood War. This is partly attributed to the fact that many units counter other units extremely hard. Seemingly more so than the way units interacted in Brood War.
Because of this, microing one's army in battle isn't as rewarding - raw unit composition and numbers seems to be more of a deciding factor. All three races (Terran, Protoss, and Zerg) feel capable of mixing their armies up in the midgame to keep each other on their toes.
Perhaps it is just because the game is still new and it's still too early for 'standard' build orders to exist, but scouting feels even more important than ever, since it's so easy to lose simply by being caught off-guard by unexpected technology from an opponent.
Of course, all this isn't to say that StarCraft II is a bad game - far from it. I get a slight Age of Empires vibe just from how macro-oriented the game is as well as from the new system of unit counters. However, the similarities end there. StarCraft II is a much faster-paced game and small setbacks can quickly snowball into a huge loss.
A Zerg vs Zerg (ZvZ) match I just played. Zerg Roaches are incredibly powerful in a ZvZ, but their short attack range means that once you reach a certain point, you will want to supplement them with Hydralisks, which have a longer attack range.
I appreciate StarCraft II for what it is, but the question is: will the wider audience? Part of what made Brood War so entertaining to watch was all the micro which players would do in a fight. Even though macro is more important, micro in Brood War is rewarded enough to make it worth doing, creating some spectacular plays.
There is no question of StarCraft II being a skillful and beautifully refined game, but the emphasis on macro may mean that the game won't be entertaining enough to garner a large audience who would be willing to view televised matches. However, we are still in the very early stages of the beta, and the metagame may yet shift to favour more micro in a fight.
Just because I can't say it enough, I'm going to go ahead and say that StarCraft II has met my expectations. Especially in the department of macro depth, which pleases me greatly :]. This was an area of the gameplay which so many fans were concerned about, and it's fantastic that Blizzard has managed to make macro a very involving and rewarding aspect of StarCraft II.
So far, it's proven to be a very challenging experience.
Teamliquid posted a very interesting article which discusses the transition from Brood War to StarCraft II. Incidentally, I came to similar conclusions the day before that article was published.
In a nutshell, I feel that despite worries that StarCraft II will become very micro-oriented (given the supposed 'ease' of macro in SC2) StarCraft II is still an incredibly macro-oriented game.
It definitely doesn't have as much emphasis on micro than WarCraft 3; and in some ways, I feel as though there's less emphasis on micro than Brood War. This is partly attributed to the fact that many units counter other units extremely hard. Seemingly more so than the way units interacted in Brood War.
Because of this, microing one's army in battle isn't as rewarding - raw unit composition and numbers seems to be more of a deciding factor. All three races (Terran, Protoss, and Zerg) feel capable of mixing their armies up in the midgame to keep each other on their toes.
Perhaps it is just because the game is still new and it's still too early for 'standard' build orders to exist, but scouting feels even more important than ever, since it's so easy to lose simply by being caught off-guard by unexpected technology from an opponent.
Of course, all this isn't to say that StarCraft II is a bad game - far from it. I get a slight Age of Empires vibe just from how macro-oriented the game is as well as from the new system of unit counters. However, the similarities end there. StarCraft II is a much faster-paced game and small setbacks can quickly snowball into a huge loss.
A Zerg vs Zerg (ZvZ) match I just played. Zerg Roaches are incredibly powerful in a ZvZ, but their short attack range means that once you reach a certain point, you will want to supplement them with Hydralisks, which have a longer attack range.I appreciate StarCraft II for what it is, but the question is: will the wider audience? Part of what made Brood War so entertaining to watch was all the micro which players would do in a fight. Even though macro is more important, micro in Brood War is rewarded enough to make it worth doing, creating some spectacular plays.
There is no question of StarCraft II being a skillful and beautifully refined game, but the emphasis on macro may mean that the game won't be entertaining enough to garner a large audience who would be willing to view televised matches. However, we are still in the very early stages of the beta, and the metagame may yet shift to favour more micro in a fight.
Just because I can't say it enough, I'm going to go ahead and say that StarCraft II has met my expectations. Especially in the department of macro depth, which pleases me greatly :]. This was an area of the gameplay which so many fans were concerned about, and it's fantastic that Blizzard has managed to make macro a very involving and rewarding aspect of StarCraft II.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
RTS games I've played thus far...
If I'm writing a blog about RTS games, I'm sure you'd all be interested in knowing just what RTS games I've played.
Well, here is a list of all the RTS games I've played so far. I may not have played all of them competitively, and I may not even understand many of them as well as I understand my select favourites, but I have played them, and I feel that at least counts for something. :]
Also, I won't lie - I love my AAA titles. My blog will definitely skew towards these :].
The Blizz
WarCraft: Orcs and Humans
WarCraft II : Tides of Darkness
WarCraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal
WarCraft III: Reign of Chaos
WarCraft III: The Frozen Throne
StarCraft
StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft II (Beta only, so far :P)
Command & Conquer + Dune games
Command & Conquer
Command & Conquer: The Covert Operations
Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars
Command & Conquer: Red Alert
Red Alert: The Aftermath
Red Alert 2
Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge
Red Alert 3
Command & Conquer: Generals
Command & Conquer: Generals - Zero Hour
Dune 2000
Emperor: Battle for Dune
Ensemble Studios
Age of Empires
Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome
Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings
Age of Empires II: The Conquerors
Age of Mythology
Age of Mythology: The Titans
Age of Empires III
Big Huge Games
Rise of Nations
Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots
Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends
Relic
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War: Winter Assault
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War: Dark Crusade
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War: Soul Storm
Company of Heroes
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II
Other RTS games
Star Wars: Force Commander
Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds
Empire Earth
Battle Realms
Sacrifice
Star Trek: Armada
Star Trek: Armada II
Trash
Total Annihilation
Total Annihilation: Kingdoms
Homeworld
Earth 2150
Metal Fatigue
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth
I may have missed some, but there you go. In future, I will be going over my relation with many of these games. Like I said, I have only dabbled in some of these games while others I have invested more time into exploring.
Well, here is a list of all the RTS games I've played so far. I may not have played all of them competitively, and I may not even understand many of them as well as I understand my select favourites, but I have played them, and I feel that at least counts for something. :]
Also, I won't lie - I love my AAA titles. My blog will definitely skew towards these :].
The Blizz
WarCraft: Orcs and Humans
WarCraft II : Tides of Darkness
WarCraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal
WarCraft III: Reign of Chaos
WarCraft III: The Frozen Throne
StarCraft
StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft II (Beta only, so far :P)
Command & Conquer + Dune games
Command & Conquer
Command & Conquer: The Covert Operations
Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars
Command & Conquer: Red Alert
Red Alert: The Aftermath
Red Alert 2
Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge
Red Alert 3
Command & Conquer: Generals
Command & Conquer: Generals - Zero Hour
Dune 2000
Emperor: Battle for Dune
Ensemble Studios
Age of Empires
Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome
Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings
Age of Empires II: The Conquerors
Age of Mythology
Age of Mythology: The Titans
Age of Empires III
Big Huge Games
Rise of Nations
Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots
Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends
Relic
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War: Winter Assault
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War: Dark Crusade
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War: Soul Storm
Company of Heroes
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II
Other RTS games
Star Wars: Force Commander
Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds
Empire Earth
Battle Realms
Sacrifice
Star Trek: Armada
Star Trek: Armada II
Trash
Total Annihilation
Total Annihilation: Kingdoms
Homeworld
Earth 2150
Metal Fatigue
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth
I may have missed some, but there you go. In future, I will be going over my relation with many of these games. Like I said, I have only dabbled in some of these games while others I have invested more time into exploring.
The Three Basic Strategies in an RTS
This may be old hat for some of my more experienced readers (I actually have no readers at the time of this post), but for those of you who are not too familiar with the RTS genre, here are the three 'basic' strategies which exist in almost all RTS games.
Of course, this might be considered to be a gross simplification in many cases, but the point of this post is just to explain the basics, so here we go.
1) Rushing.
A 'Rush' is the term used to describe a particularly fast attack. In general, building a strong early economy is sacrificed in exchange for producing combat units earlier than your opponent, and attacking before she or he can mount an adequate defence.
2) Turtling.
A 'Turtle' is a term used to describe spending your resources towards a more defensive strategy, often at the cost of economy or control of the map.
3) Booming (yay).
'Booming' is when a player dedicates her or his early game resources to building up infrastructure, ensuring a stronger economy than their opponent as the game goes on.
These three 'core' strategies tend to have a rock-scissors-paper interaction.
A Turtle will beat a Rush, since Turtling is a strategy designed specifically to withold an early-game attack. Also, a rush tends to be more economically demanding than a turtling strategy. This means that if the turtling player survives the rush, she or he will tend to be economically better off and in a position to decide where the game goes next.
A Boom will beat a Turtle, since the turtler will be spending resources mounting a defence for an attack which never comes. Instead, the boomer will have such an economic advantage that they will be able to produce enough combat units to power through whatever defence the turtler creates with its weaker economy.
A Rush will beat a Boom since the boomer will have inadequate defences to deal with such a fast attack.
In future, I plan to explore these generalisations in more detail. Remind me to save that idea for a future article. :]
Cheetah picture from: Jason Bechtel
Turtle picture from: Swamibu
Honeypot Ants picture from: Tom D.
Of course, this might be considered to be a gross simplification in many cases, but the point of this post is just to explain the basics, so here we go.
1) Rushing.
A 'Rush' is the term used to describe a particularly fast attack. In general, building a strong early economy is sacrificed in exchange for producing combat units earlier than your opponent, and attacking before she or he can mount an adequate defence.2) Turtling.
A 'Turtle' is a term used to describe spending your resources towards a more defensive strategy, often at the cost of economy or control of the map.
3) Booming (yay).
'Booming' is when a player dedicates her or his early game resources to building up infrastructure, ensuring a stronger economy than their opponent as the game goes on.These three 'core' strategies tend to have a rock-scissors-paper interaction.
A Turtle will beat a Rush, since Turtling is a strategy designed specifically to withold an early-game attack. Also, a rush tends to be more economically demanding than a turtling strategy. This means that if the turtling player survives the rush, she or he will tend to be economically better off and in a position to decide where the game goes next.
A Boom will beat a Turtle, since the turtler will be spending resources mounting a defence for an attack which never comes. Instead, the boomer will have such an economic advantage that they will be able to produce enough combat units to power through whatever defence the turtler creates with its weaker economy.
A Rush will beat a Boom since the boomer will have inadequate defences to deal with such a fast attack.
In future, I plan to explore these generalisations in more detail. Remind me to save that idea for a future article. :]
Cheetah picture from: Jason Bechtel
Turtle picture from: Swamibu
Honeypot Ants picture from: Tom D.
Defend Me While I Boom - Welcome!
Welcome to Defend Me While I Boom!
This is a blog about the Real Time Strategy (RTS) genre of computer games and will feature previews, reviews, thoughts on design, and plenty of other random stuff.
First thing's first, however. Why call it 'Defend Me While I Boom'? Back in my days of playing Age of Empires III, I met another player named Raaman. I was playing as the Dutch and he was Portuguese, if I remember our first encounter correctly. We had a hard-fought game, but I triumphed in the end. We had a rematch, which I also won. However, we became fast 'online buddies', and we continued to play many more Age of Empires III games together.
At some point in our adventures, while playing a 2 vs 2 match, one of us said: "defend me while I boom", and somehow that became a running gag. No matter what the situation, and no matter what the RTS game we were playing (we stuck together for other RTS games, as well), one of us would begin the game by suggesting our new 'best' strategy - "defend me while I boom."
It was hilarious at the time, and I daresay it still is. :]
Stay a while, pull up a chair, help yourself to some Root Beer, and I hope you enjoy reading my thoughts on my favourite videogame genre.
This is a blog about the Real Time Strategy (RTS) genre of computer games and will feature previews, reviews, thoughts on design, and plenty of other random stuff.
First thing's first, however. Why call it 'Defend Me While I Boom'? Back in my days of playing Age of Empires III, I met another player named Raaman. I was playing as the Dutch and he was Portuguese, if I remember our first encounter correctly. We had a hard-fought game, but I triumphed in the end. We had a rematch, which I also won. However, we became fast 'online buddies', and we continued to play many more Age of Empires III games together.
At some point in our adventures, while playing a 2 vs 2 match, one of us said: "defend me while I boom", and somehow that became a running gag. No matter what the situation, and no matter what the RTS game we were playing (we stuck together for other RTS games, as well), one of us would begin the game by suggesting our new 'best' strategy - "defend me while I boom."
It was hilarious at the time, and I daresay it still is. :]
Stay a while, pull up a chair, help yourself to some Root Beer, and I hope you enjoy reading my thoughts on my favourite videogame genre.