Rushing

With good scouting information, no. Rushing was only ever viable against low-skilled players.

Rushing was easily countered if you got a scout out as your first unit and continued to produce units for defence while you gathered information.

Rushing is a valid tactic but only really worked in TA on small maps (we're talking tiny tiny maps like Metal Heck here) and is swiftly countered by scouting information. TA didn't even have stealth units until much later in the game, so T1 radar gave you plenty of time to counter a rusher.

If all you did was trust that EMGs weren't coming, or scouted an early Flash Tank and did nothing but Eco without the skill to use the D-Gun correctly... then as I've said several times now, you deserved to die to the rush.

You didn't really get at the point I was getting at.

EMG rushing was FOO (FIrst Order Optimal stratify) for a really long time, and that was enough for people to outright ban the flash and peewee from games, and that's not good.

Nothing wrong with FOO Strategies. High on the "power" scale to be sure... but it taught me pretty damn fast to scout and build base defence over straight Eco or fast-teching.

The response in 3.1 and Core Contingency effectively made it a NON strategy. The "counter" for Core was so over powered that it nullified rushing entirely as a concept, let alone viable tactic.

Not a good thing. I played much smarter in the old days of TA.
3.1 and Core Contingency made me lazy

I don't even know what to say.

:| Im surprised this thread is still alive

Really? They're very important. You can't just get rid of them... seriously.

In terms of this thread being alive... yea. I guess I'll not look at it anymore.

That's what happens when someone is right.

FOO is going to happen. The trick is reigning in the dominant strats so they don't define the game.

Now that was just rude.

If they are reined in, then they are not FOO because there are as good alternatives.

FOO is a fantastic way of stagnating the game, and making it boring to play, and should be avoided.

Nope. FOO is an amazing way for less skilled players to feel like they are able to accomplish something even if they are not able to master the grand scope of the whole game yet.

This is now veering towards off topic. I made a topic on FOO and super units, but I'm thinking of starting a new thread tom exclusively discuss FOO.

I feel like it's something we've discussed before, but I don't think it's had it's own thread yet, just make sure it goes into General Discussion! ;p

Also maybe Label it as a PSA, then I can throw it in with my PSAs xD

Mike

I think that people are talking about different things when they mention FOO. It's definately needed in games if you want to get fresh blood into the game, because nobody's going to stick around if all the viable strategies are way too hard to pull off for them. You need simple, straightforward, effective strategies in the game.

If they don't nerf the deathnuke again comrushing should be quite dangerous and could easily result in a draw anyway.

I believe with FOO neutrino talked about the commanders 'egg' would have basic structures and such to minimise the time spent doing the basic acts like that.

I also heard that these might be customisable. I dont know how far the devs thoughts have progressed on that but it can help.

That's just going to be annoying though because you can't trust the designer, even Uber, to actually know anything about how their own game plays.

The actual FOO will 100% be something different from what Uber makes the egg do.

Still I think FOO is not an unavoidable fact of life. There's going to be multiple paths to take at the beginning and making each viable is a matter of balancing starting unit costs with starting resources and build times.

Peh. Many problems can be seen a mile away and avoided before they even come to light. For the most subtle and unpredictable issues, there's an alpha and a beta.

FOO should not be avoided. If you think FOO is bad, and actually detrimental to the game then I'm going to have to seriously consider writing a massive essay on why you are wrong.

Mishandling FOO is bad. Creating broken gameplay is bad. But FOO Strategy... even quite obvious FOO Strategies (to you or I) do not mean the game is broken, nor that one should avoid embracing it.

Love FOO Strategies. Hate Broken Strategies.
And no, the two are not the same.

Yes, nanolathe, we get it.

It's just that the difference between having FOOs and game wrecking dominant play is incredibly subtle and very difficult to design. Creating a good system will take a ton of work.

I don't entirely understand the connection between the topic at hand and the end page discussions.

I think rushing is a viable tactic. It's a win-loose gambit. It's like that spell from Populous3: you have one spell, and when cast all units enter an arena and battle to death. Who wins, wins the game.

Rushing is kind of like that: If you rush right, you win. if you do it wrong you'll probably loose. Rushing as a strategy is not wrong. However, if you can get tons of easy wins and it becomes an overpowered strategy...the game balance is broken.

IMO, all strategies are viable. It's up to the game designers to manage the power-to-complexity ratio of the strategies.


I have no clue what FOOS has to do with it (pretty sure the S needs to be there). If i read it right, FOOS is pretty much always there. Either as a game flaw, a necessary evil or a feature. You'll need simple but effective strategies for the game to make any sense to starters. IMO, more complex strategies should always pay off. Effort should pay off. But that doesn't mean you can't have FOOS.

*sigh*

Nanolathe, you should really link the extra credits video you're thinking of. Or people will keep arguing with you.

That video fits well for shoot em' ups, but not for RTS games.

And nor should it.