Casual players like me

No matter what what you throw at some people there will be some who just react like this.

I like this idea, but the hints it could give would need to be really general, so it would be of limited use.

In the end I just don't see a way out of the reality that it is hard to make the first steps in RTS and the best way to learn is to pick up some friends who are just starting the game, too and play with them. That's something that the game itself cannot provide.

How many people actually watch replays to improve their game play?

Because I sure as hell don't, and even as a part time player of supcom I wouldn't say I am that bad.

I feel you are all putting too much faith in replays to help new players, because watching is not the same as doing, and for players like me learning a game is more about observing and reacting in real time rather then using proper planning beforehand.

I actually watched them from time to time, but it's important to find the right pieces and information, which can be hard.

I am thinking the community will be ones who might be best at teaching the new players.

Personally I prefer the method of putting my friends up against a hard AI and only intervening when they are going to lose....a trial by fire kinda thing really weeds out a lot of the problems.

R.U.S.E. is an interesting game. Setting up the base is very simple and the combat is helped by the UI which estimates how well your selected units will do against a group of enemy units when you mouseover on them.
That game doesn't require much input in general.

Unit interactions are fairly simple with clear RPS and the information system(like LoS and radar) is also simple.

However, from what I've heard neutrino seems to be interesting in making the economy in PA and basebuilding quite advanced so PA will require you to learn how to handle the economy before you are able to compete in multiplayer games.

Offcourse if you really want to learn the game by playing multiplayer I suggest going into a host that says "newbies only", "coop against AI" or "FFA" where you will have much larger chance to compete and learn the game as you play.

I think many of the aspects of PA economy and unit combat will be rather complex if you look at TA and SupCom.

COMP-STOMP FOREVER!

There is a lot of bias in this thread against people who learn better by doing than by watching. Hopefully the AI for PA will be pretty good so that practice against it will put you on a good starting level for online play unlike some games where playing AI is completely pointless and will make you develop useless tactics for playing actual people; for instance if you throw your minds back Yuri's Revenge AI was so stupid that you could beat 7 Brutals by yourself on the right map (blow up all the bridges, spam AA and planes, WIN!).

An AI is not a suitable replacement for playing against a human, it's fine to play against them, but don't expect anything meaningful to come from it.

It's fine to learn by doing so long as you expect it's a slower process, zooming through the replay every now and then and putting aside 10-15 minutes to read a guide isn't all that bad either.

There's also coaching from other players, it's the kinda the best from both worlds in that not only do you have a player that already knows the same info you'd find in guides, but they're able to teach you while playing.

Mike

I think the first thing i'd like to comment on is, I'm actually really impressed with how people responded to this thread because i think whenever someone says. "i can't be bothered" or "I won't do this" it can make people see red. So good job for keeping this civil. Rephrasing might be a good idea next time OP. Maybe rather than saying you won't do it maybe say you prefer no too for such and such reason.

I mean how many replies have been, watch replays? I know when I started i never watched replays and got fairly good on the types of games I was used too.

I'm always in favour of a system that does ranking better. I played FAF few months back briefly. Even while rusty I played the ranking and this guy kept matching with me, i think the reason was that we were really the only two people trying ranking at the time and were at a similar level. The first game I completely destroyed him it was almost an effortless game.

The next game we played I decided to take it easier on him and try and make the game last longer. This didn't really work well because he could see I was hanging back and he said just finished it.

The third game he said "not you again!" and disconnected.

Game four, he played the best he had out of well the two games. He had actually learnt from his mistakes but it was obvious he was only planning one thing at a time, so he was not only incredibly easy to predict but also counter.

I think at the end of a rank match the losing player should have the option of toggling whether they would want to be matched up with that player again. Rather than making it impossible it would just make it less likely.

I think teaching yourself can give a greater sense of achievement rather than just copying others, I think it's natural to adopt techniques that are clearly better than your own though.

I've always felt if something is fun then i'll always improve at it because I'll come back to it more.

So in short, if you want to improve at anything there's two things required:
You have to be prepared to fail and you have to be prepared to put time into it.

ps. I also think my signature is quite relevant too! ^^

What I am reading is that weak players want to win games. While casual doesn't necessarily mean weak, in this case players are complaining about always losing, which does imply a weak player.

The only way to win more games is to play better. The game isn't discriminating against you- the game is making you lose because you are playing in a poor manner. The only way to win is to stop playing that way and try something else. Each loss should be a wake-up call that what you are doing loses games.

I mean, honestly, is this really so surprising? You don't lose because you are a weak player; you are a weak player because you lose.


What I am reading is that players have preconceived notions about what they want to do, how they want to play, etc. etc. They want to make experimentals, they want to defend for hours, they want to use artillery, etc. etc. These notions are fabricated from whole cloth based on nothing short of whim. And when these notions are invariably wrong, the player guided by them will of course lose that game.

The problem arises when these players refuse to adapt and continue playing the same way, making the same fundamental and strategic errors, and they keep losing. They never self-analyze and change in order to win. Eventually, they get sick of losing and leave. Must be a bad game. And these players are none the wiser that they never even took the first baby steps at playing RTS, much less start walking or running.


Strategy

Strategy games are fundamentally about strategic principles which players use to make decisions during the game. A player whose strategic principles better conform to the facts about the game will vastly outperform a player who is wildly incorrect, or is guessing at random about what is strong. Only fools expect the game to conform to their principles. You must formulate your strategic principles based on the game.

Weak players are essentially committing the same error as the British in the Revolutionary War, of thinking that war "should" be fought wearing brightly colored uniforms and marching in straight lines. And when they lose against superior tactics they degrade their opponent or the game itself rather than take the hint and change their own methods. Players playing "for fun" by doing things that are "fun" for them are selecting their strategic principles using among the stupidest methods imaginable- their subjective opinion of what is "cool."

This is a more fundamental problem than lack of information. The information is available- but these players are blind to it. These players are receiving a constant stream of data saying "what you are doing is not working" and they cannot discern the message.


"Nobody Enjoys Losing All the Time"

That is fine- power to you. But you can't expect what you do just to mess around to conform with optimal play. If you really do find it more entertaining to make a mess of units and experimentals and such, then go ahead. In a ladder game, you will lose, and you should already be aware of this fact and accept it.

Failure is an inevitable part of playing a strategy game. Your opponent is also a human who wants to win, with similar tools and thinking capability. Is it surprising to you that you only win about 50% of the time when evenly matched? Losing is a learning experience. This is not an RPG where you find 10 sticks and get experience points just because- you are LITERALLY gaining experience by playing, not experience "points."

A player seeking to win will root out optimal play from its well-hidden depths through experimentation and self-analysis. Their optimal play will be based on data from actually playing the game. And seeking optimal play, by definition, does produce wins.

So when I read players saying they are only playing for fun, I have no problem with the fact that they enjoy robots and smashing planets and explosions. However I also don't believe you. These same players are hypocrites.

With their next sentence these players will claim "nobody enjoys losing all the time." This is a thinly veiled attempt to say that, despite their total lack of effort to improve, or even modify their play, they still feel entitled to win the game. Because winning actually IS fun for them, and they think they are entitled to the game being designed in a manner that is fun for them.

When these players say they want to win, nay, that they should win because "nobody enjoys losing all the time" it really is an insult to players who are actually trying to figure the game out. Worse, it is an impetus for the developers to sell out the integrity of their game to appeal to the lowest common denominator. To reduce Chess to being a trivial game just so players who don't understand it can play against masters and win. Selling the strategic depth of your game for a fleeting ego boost of the weakest players in the base is simply not acceptable.


The Dumbing Down of Modern Games

Modern games are becoming dumber. Mainly because as audiences grow larger and more mainstream, the financial benefits of appealing to a hardcore audience dwindles. The casual audience is much larger, is much less discerning of depth/quality, and goes through many more products in the same timeframe. The side effect of this dumbing down relevant to the discussion at hand is the casualization of the impact of player skill. Allowing weaker players to win more, with less ability and knowledge. This is one aspect of PA that very much concerns me- that it will follow in SupCom 2's path of increased casual appeal at the expense of depth. Nothing would disappoint me more.

There are powerful financial incentives to casualize, since casual players are more numerous than hardcore players, despite the vastly disproportionate playtime. Casual players will pay full price, and only play a few dozen games until the shiny explosions, sound effects, and the novelty of smashing planets together, become boring. And when they are bored, they will go out and buy another game, allowing annual re-releases and rehashes to actually become profitable.

I am very much hoping that Uber, by relying on Kickstarter, has escaped the financial brain drain that is plaguing the video game industry. Gameplay and depth should be Uber's highest priority, since a fantastic gameplay experience lasts for a very, very long time, and builds an IP with immense staying power and value at a single stroke.


In sum, no, you are NOT entitled to win using whatever half-assed method you wish to play simply because winning is fun for you. If you want to win, you are going to have to change the way you play to fit the game's rules.

I fully agree with you.

Well in my opinion RTS games really fail at explaining the basics of the competitive gaming. In SC2 it practically boils down to avoid supply blocks, build enough workers and constantly producing units. With those things you're in good shape in the bronze league. The problem though is that blizzard doesn't bother explaining that a supply block will eventually lead to losing a game. You may get through the campaign easily and beat even the hard A.I. without paying big attention to your supply. On the ladder though you will be punished.
I played sc2 mostly with my friends and they told me to build this or that to get better. In the end, it wasn't until I watched Day9 who explained the essentials of sc2 that I got above bronze level.
You may now think that this is a starcraft specific issue but in my opinion it isn't. I beat every non cheating A.I in FA with ease. But got owned really hard on the ladder. This really discouraged me from further playing on the ladder and so i only played vs A.I. with a friend.
My point is this: You need to prepare the player for laddering, as it's different (at least for me and a couple of my friends) from campaign or A.I matches. Communicate the basics to the player during his first steps on the ladder. Maybe some kind of overlay, which shows idle time of fabs or what could be done with too much metal. Maybe some training each player has to go through, before playing on the ladder. It isn't about being the best player, but to have a little fun while playing on the ladder.

regards
Bloedhren

The game does warn you and you are unable to build units when you want to. It should be obvious that such a thing is just as bad as not having enough resources to build units.

Did you play against Sorian AI?
Hopefully the AI in PA will be a better opponent and will bridge the gap between singleplayer and multiplayer more than in FA.

I think you might be misunderstanding my point. I am fully in support of encouraging learning and not dumbing down the game. Other casual players may not be the same way, but they probably cross the line between "casual" and "idiot".

But I think you're wrong on the point I quoted. RTS games have a vast amount of variables and without proper design, it's virtually impossible to tell which one is wrong.

Take this equation for example:
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 20
That's clearly not right and any first-grade-level math teacher can tell me so. What they can't tell me is what I'm doing wrong, so I have no choice but to keep doing the same thing and getting the same wrong result.

Now if I do something like this:
1 + 2 = 3
3 + 3 = 6
6 + 4 = 10
10 + 4 = 15
15 + 5 = 20

It's much easier to tell what I did wrong. (This is not, to be clear, an example from experience )

The point is that giving more information and granular response is immensely helpful in teaching a skill, and working on nothing more than "I did all this stuff and I lost" is going to be a frustrating experience.

I'm astonished that this is such a controversial idea. The problem might be an unnecessarily inflammatory OP as some have mentioned. I'm going to rewrite that sometime later today or tomorrow. (I may have been a bit irritated while writing it because my computer turned off without saving the first draft)

Yes, this is helpful. If there are warnings like this in all of the areas that act as newbie pitfalls (wherever possible, of course. Sometimes newbie pitfalls are related to the metagame, and sometimes what's a "mistake" in the early game becomes acceptable or even necessary in the late game), the game will be much less frustrating.

When i watched my replays there were so many things to do better and mostly i chose to change those that had only minor impact. And it's very clear to me now that a supply block is really bad. But you had to throw a brick at me saying: "Dude that's really bad" because there was so much other noise. You don't have to explain the whole game but show the most common newbie mistakes.(Which usually are the basics of laddering)

And I also agree mostly with ledarsi. The game shouldn't be casualized. Also it should be obvious that fooling around won't bring you anywhere in laddering. My approach would be to guide the weak players into being not so weak player and avoid the newbie traps. This also shouldn't lead to instant winning. It should encourage you to get a better play style.

regards

Telling newbies how to play is one thing. Some people like it, some people would rather figure it out on their own. Letting the game draw newbies into proper play styles is a different manner entirely, and it isn't easy to do.

There's a huge reason I want to see reclaimer scouts, and it's because they set the game mood right away. There's a large amount of potential resources on a new planet, and the first player to get them has more everything to work with. A small, cheap, and fast unit will do this job very well, with the advantage of scouting the map. More importantly, it will inevitably crash into enemy scouts doing the same thing. What you get is an instant battle, fighting over resources even before extractors are claimed. Reclaimer scouts may also be useful raiders, destroying undefended structures while putting money into your bank. That's a big punishment for Commanders failing to defend their base.

What you basically get is the entire game summarized into the first unit on the field. Get resources, meet the enemy, take his resources, and kill him. It's almost poetic.

You make some good points in your argument, but out of sake of historical accuracy, I'm going to have to pick on this one. At the time, the British tactics were far superior due to the limitations of the weapons. The line formations they used allowed for maximum firepower to be brought forth, and the multiple rows allowed for continuous fire during reloads. The red uniforms identified allies very rapidly and allowed for quick communication and battlefield awareness. Meanwhile, the colonial armies were haphazard, nowhere near as well armed (Brits used rifles, colonials used muskets), and eventually resorted to desperation guerrilla tactics of arguable effectiveness. The Brits "lost" the war because it just wasn't worth their time or money to keep fighting it, especially since the colonies weren't very important to them at all.

As for the actual topic, pluisgen made an excellent suggestion about playing teamgames. In Zero-K, teamgames are especially frequent and are generally how players get their taste of multiplayer. It's much less of a joke than it is in Starcraft 2, and I feel that PA's gameplay style will be conducive to such teamgames as well.

What you are getting at Sylversterink is that once upon a time there was an excellent justification for regimented fighting units. As you said, well-disciplined regiments allow for efficient volley fire against a massed enemy. However it is even more efficient to use a widely spaced loose formation, except for one very important fact of 18th century warfare.

The primary reason for rigid formations actually has nothing to do with firearms. The primary reason is cavalry. A weak line cannot withstand a cavalry charge. And if your lines break, you effectively lose the battle immediately. If the enemy has cavalry, you must be able to survive a charge, and this means your men must be thoroughly drilled to stand fast in formation with bayonets fixed.

A rigid formation with bayonets is as effective a deterrent against cavalry as a unit of pike. This combination of a spear and a powerful ranged attack is the reason why muskets and rifles became so universally dominant so quickly- it allowed a single soldier to fill all battlefield roles using a weapon that can be mass-produced and mass-deployed easily.

British soldiers were trained to fight against well-organized European armies with large artillery corps and elite cavalry forces. Their tactics make perfect sense for fighting a large, well-equipped enemy army in open battle. However, If cavalry are not a part of the equation, spreading your forces over space and using cover becomes extremely effective. Something the British should have realized.

Against the Americans, who had only limited, ill-equipped, and ill-trained cavalry, they should have changed their tactics. The American Revolutionaries had musket and cannon enough that rank and file's disadvantages were prominent, but lacked the large elite cavalry forces that rank and file was intended to counter. What it really boiled down to was British forces were drilled to the point of inflexibility, and as a result they could not adjust their tactics for changing battlefield conditions.

Still, your logistical point is perfectly correct. The colonies were simply not worth the cost the British would have needed to pay to keep them due to the distance and the fact that shipping was the best logistical system of the day. The British could certainly have "won" if they had decided to commit enough resources. Their wealth at the time was staggering, enabling virtually unlimited troops and weapons to be utilized if Britain had wished. However it was uneconomical for them to do so.

No one asked for the ability to run at a competitive level by doing whatever...

I'm sorry, but a game is designed to entertain. Telling people they don't get to have fun because "you should do what it takes to win and suck it if you don't want to" creates a frustrating and boring game.

I honestly disagree. Even looking at a(n FA) replay, the one thing that isn't clear is WHY my enemy has double the bases and triple the army I do.

Again, no one is asking for that. People are asking that it avoid clubbing you over the head repeatedly for not min-maxing the optimal solution. Is it so hard to design in such a way that doesnt screw the player that just wants to see pretty robots blow up?

I'm sorry, but this is a fallacy. I can name a ton of "hardcore" games which are popular but offer high depth/complexity/skill requirement: Dwarf Fortress, Meat Boy, Dota 2, Sins of a Solar Empire, Civilization (4 is still popular if you wish to complain about the entirely reasonable changes in 5), ...

And yes, a game is going to have an audience in an inverse proportion to how obtuse it is. This is a simple fact of complexity. You can't (and shouldn't) expect Dwarf Fortress to be a game which sells millions of copies, because there are many, many aspects of it that suck. If it had a solid UI and half decent graphics, it would be many many times as popular. Fact is, it doesn't and it isn't, and that's a deliberate choice the developer has made. Mostly because of development constraints, but I would bet that "I like my community small and fanatic" is somewhere on that list of reasons.

---------------

Bottom line, I feel very strongly that SupCom 2 was perfectly fine and the complaints leveled against it boiled down to "it wasn't what WE demanded". There is very well a middle ground, and I just don't see the point in arguing for hardcore vs casuals when...