Explanations on GAMBITTING!

[jamaylott]

Hey there all,

as you all now most likely realize, I am sorta crazy. I get so many f**kin ideas every day about SC2 that i'll probably lose me job, wife, and health over it.

well, if it only costs my health, and the GAME IS SLIGHTLY helped by it, i think its even :)


okay, so what the @#$% is all this talk about gambits.... just a quick over view:


gambits let you "program your strategy"

They let you tell units what to do, without having to MICRO them, but still require you to SPECIFY just what exactly you want that unit/ to do and when

gambits can @#$% you over savagely if you don't use them correctly, examples on that later

Every unit and building are/can have gambits, (its all pre-done for you, eg: attack a unit when it comes close etc)

gambits are a hybrid of a computer and a player, working together in synch, not just trying to vanquish the enemy on its own

and lastly GAMBITS ARE AWESOME!!!













sorry about the dots :S

anyway

I have never seen a true gambit system in an RTS in my life, but ive seen it in other types of games to an extent. bassically heres how it works

theres a few columns,

1). The first column specifies the unit/building who is going to be gambited. It can either be ALL units of this type, or just one specifically. eg: All Warfactories, or just one ghost. All tanks, or just one SCV

2). The second specifies the where, or what the unit is going to interact with. eg: foe flying, Ally Tank, Ally Protoss, Ally Building or more specifically - Ally Command Centre, Foe gound.... etc.

the next part, say, 2.5 would be whevther the unit/structure the GAMBITTED unit is interacting with is Nearest Visible, or Revealed.

3). the third specifies a Condition, like, HP>200, HP<50%, or Energy<20%

And the Fourth Specifies:

4). The action to preform, so, REPAIR, ATTACK, SEIGE MODE, CLOAK, PSI STORM ect.



any thoughts thus faR?

[Gold]

I think its a cool idea, dont get me wrong i like it, but its not good for starcraft 2 i think, starcraft is all about player skill and micro etc, and although i see waht your saying about gambits back firing, i just dont think the player should need any help when it comes to stratagie, he has to do it all on his own.

maybe im wrong though, Maybe there isnt much of a difference between a unit thats supposed to be anti air that automaticly targets air units over ground units in a battle and this.
i know blizzard sometimes do the above.

[jamaylott]

exactly.... and BELIEVE me, it wouldn't take away from the micro.

I kind of invisioned this........ you can pre-set 3 (maybe 4) simple gambits for each race.


Then, during the 2-3 minute warm-up, players would set their gambits up IN GAME.


it would take LOTS of micro skill to bring up the Gampbit window all the while you are building your base ect.

And like you said before, there already are gambits set: Tanks attack ground units if there are air units present, The SCV/Drones/Probes All automatically return to the base with resources they have harvested, units retreat if you attack them and they cant attack you.... ect.

But wouldnt it be cool in an RTS enviroment, where you can set gambits to HARD-COUNTER a certain players strategy?

THANKS FOR TEH POST GOLD, YOU ROCK! if only others would follow suit :)

[Gold]

well like i said, i like the idea.
one of the things starcraft players didnt like about warcraft3 was auto cast.
and i think although its not the same thing, it is simmilar in some respects, like i said before, i think its a good idea, but maybe not for starcraft2. Although it does seem like the natrual progression from units being programed to do certain things according to there role.

[Remy]

Navigating menus all day in a game of REAL TIME strategy isn't my idea of fun.

Think it could work for a TBS/RTS hybrid, or even create its own genre based on preprogrammed action/reaction, but I certainly feel that this is not for StarCraft.

Other than the extreme early moments in each game, after you get a few more workers, you really don't have enough time for all that.Â* That is if you're looking to do everything as quickly as possible, and other things like recon.

I also believe no gambit can be simple enough to be generally accessible yet thorough enough to function realistically in a game.Â* For instance, even though killing off that unit with <20% HP might be good to have as a priority in most situations, when the opponent is microing that unit all over the place while the rest of his ranged units are getting free shots on ur units that mindlessly give chase is not good.

I don't want to be in a battle and be more busy counteracting the gambits than actually micromanaging my units manually.

Having unit behavior dictated by gambits is basically handing them over to an A.I. and A.I. sucks, even if it's A.I. set by yourself.Â* Because an A.I. based on multiple true/false conditions will never be thorough enough to cover all situations, and certainly lack any ability to adapt on the fly.Â* And if you make a gambit so thorough that it is even remotely close to manual unit control in function, then you just made it so complex that it is no longer simple enough to be accessible.

Human beings don't have to ask themselves if the condition is true for every little decision they make or every little action they perform.Â* You play SC long enough, you know how to react to specific situations before you even think why.Â* This can never be beaten.

But if there was a strategy game designed from the ground up with gambits in mind, I wouldn't mind giving it a try.Â* It would be interesting to face off opponents and wage war to see who's the more clever strategist in terms of gambits.

[T-man]

The idea is very intriguing in terms of general strategy. I have often cursed the game's AI when my units run off and do something incredibly dumb, but setting concrete priorities wouldn't solve that, as Remy said.
Also agreeing with Remy, I would certainly give such a game a try if it was a new concept, but SC2 is too precious to mess up on a risk.
Auto-casting in WCIII was... interesting... The only autocast I truly will be disappointed to not see in SC2 is repair. They already started having it with the medics auto-healing any nearby units, but SCVs really need to be able to autorepair. Also, it would be cool if an SCV could repair Protoss buildings/mech units or a Medic heal Zerg units. This of course would be limited to allies, but it could bring cooperation and alliances to a whole new level. That or the Protoss Dark Archon could just Mind Control a SCV and repair all of his stuff :D

While on the subject of sharing across races, perhaps a Protoss could bestow a shield upon Terran or Zerg units, either for a set amount of time or a set damage. Perhaps it would be a buyable upgrade, where the Toss Executor would spend like 250 minerals (and on that subject, resource trading would be very nice in SC2) and click on the Terran/Zerg unit to upgrade with a shield. The shield would be very minor, say 25 SP for ground units or maybe 50 or 100 for air units, but it could really turn the tide. Perhaps it could be that small ground units could only use the 25 SP one because of its weight, but a BC could be upgraded with the huge 100 SP one because it is so huge.

[coalescence]

Also, it would be cool if an SCV could repair Protoss buildings/mech units or a Medic heal Zerg units.

SCV drivers (? pilots?) don't have the knowledge to repair protoss stuff, neither do medics have the knowledge to heal zerg units. I found it weird enough that medics could heal zealots, found the last one a killer combo tho.

[T-man]

Quite true, but information sharing is accomplished even by nations in the present! I'm sure that an allied Protoss commander could download some specs into an SCV and have them get to work. For balancing purposes, maybe the SCV only would repair at 50% efficiency (so it'd take twice as long as the build time to repair completely) because the SCV is unfamiliar with the Protoss technology, and has to follow the instructions word for word.
As for medics, I'm fairly certain again that information sharing would allow this to happen. It is feasible that a random Zergling wouldn't know how to heal itself, but the Hivemind/Kerrigan should have a mastery of all things Zerg, and an Overlord or something could instruct the Medic how to fix the damaged unit up. Again, the efficiency loss would be a great balancer.

[coalescence]

The efficiency loss is a good idea, because the protoss technology maybe is too much for a human to comprehend.
The overmind/kerrigan are too busy destroying stuff, they don't care about zerglings ;D And I don't see how an Overlord could interact with a human... It speaks zerg :P

[T-man]

The overmind/kerrigan are too busy destroying stuff, they don't care about zerglings ;D And I don't see how an Overlord could interact with a human... It speaks zerg :P

Very true.
However now we are progressing into the Realism issue :P
In terms of balancing, if SVCs can fix Protoss buildings, and Medics can heal Protoss organic units (they already can heal Zealots), then it would mean that the Zerg get the shaft from the advantages of Terran. I would think that it would only be fair to allow Medics to heal all organics (including Zerg organics), and SCVs repair all mechanicals. If Blizzard (or you) wanted, I could definitely see needing two Medics minimum to work on huge units, such as Ultralisks.
Continuing on this train of thought, if SCVs can repair Terran and Protoss buildings, that would leave Zerg behind, since their buildings are organics. Perhaps Drones could gain the ability to repair, but by giving up their own genetic material. So maybe a Drone could repair a building, but it would lose health as it did so, and if it died while repairing, then it was assumed to be absorbed into the building for the good of the Overmind!

[Gold]

i think its fine the way it is.
no need to change that sorta stuff.

im jealous that coal is now a comander and im not

[coalescence]

Dont be jealous and post your ass off. As long as you don't spam that is :)

[T-man]

i think its fine the way it is.
no need to change that sorta stuff.


I agree that things are fine the way they are, but if there was no need to change stuff, then why are they making SC2 :P
The huge changes are truly awesome, and I have pretty much used the gameplay demo as pr0n these last few days, but the small stuff is what will truly make or break a game. WCIII got around the repair issue by making every worker able to repair, and every race has items/abilities that can heal their own race, and often other races of the same type (Undead versus Alive).
There are plenty of RTS's out there with crazy cool units, but I love SC for its gameplay and versatility. I was simply thinking that alliance and teams (perhaps clan-based) could be more influenced by specific advantages of teaming up with specific races.
To go along with the Terran->Protoss or Terran->Zerg benefit, I'll have to think up a Protoss->Terran, a Zerg->Terran, a Zerg->Protoss, and a Protoss->Zerg benefit set as well.
Give me a few minutes :D

[Gold]

yes but the difference between warcraft and starcraft is taht warcraft was orignaly jsut two races
two races that were exactly the same stats wise, with jsut some slightly different higher tier units and spells.
one of the things that make starcraft uniqe, is how different the races are.

Terran can repair buildings
protoss can repair sheilds
zerg heal over time

you cant change that, its againsts what the game is.


To jamaylott

Dont be disheartend by all of us saying that this gambit idea of yours may not be right for starcraft, i am sure theres a permutation of it that will work. Anything that gives the player more control is only a good thing, but this has to be the simplest and easiest way possible, one of the things i hate in dawn of war is the stance settings.

Just keep thinking, im sure you will come up with a way where this idea works.

[Remy]

To jamaylott

Dont be disheartend by all of us saying that this gambit idea of yours may not be right for starcraft, i am sure theres a permutation of it that will work.


Yes, please don't misundstand. I wasn't barking at the idea itself, just if it pertains to StarCraft. I'd be happy to see another game with that implemented.

And as for the little debate of T-man, coalescence, and Gold(more like exchange of ideas/opinions than argument), I kinda have mixed feelings about that.

Although it's true that we should preserve the racial identities of each race(sheild/repair/regen), it would be nice to have some benefits from different race combos. It would make team games more interesting.

When I have Terran ally in a team game I always park my first ovie by the Terran's choke after initial scouting. It makes sense for a team of Terran/Protoss vs a team of Zerg/Zerg to enjoy some kind of specific small benefit from their racial combo over their opponents beyond unit diversity. But still, it needs to be something small, anything too advantageous would break the game.

[10-Neon]

There are already a few benefits for using races in combos. The best anti-air combo is the rapid-fire attack and splash of the Corsair mixed with the armor-crushing devastation of the Devourer. Zerg and Protoss ground forces are greatly strengthened by the inclusion of friendly Medics (Medics + Hydralisks is truly terrifying.) Admittedly, there are only a few combinations like this, but the ones that do exist are very powerful: it just happens that most players do not cooperate enough to do this.

[Remy]

I personally would like to see something beyond unit diversity. That is an automatic feature, a natural result if you will.

SCVs repairing ally Toss buildings would be more off of Terran's racial identity, their exclusive ability to repair. Where medics working with other race units is really just plugging in something else in place of marines in the M+M equation.

[jamaylott]

HOLY CRAP!!! you guys are AWESOMEEEE


okay, now for my turn :) heh heh heh!!



Navigating menus all day in a game of REAL TIME strategy isn't my idea of fun.

Think it could work for a TBS/RTS hybrid, or even create its own genre based on preprogrammed action/reaction, but I certainly feel that this is not for StarCraft.

Other than the extreme early moments in each game, after you get a few more workers, you really don't have enough time for all that. That is if you're looking to do everything as quickly as possible, and other things like recon.

I also believe no gambit can be simple enough to be generally accessible yet thorough enough to function realistically in a game. For instance, even though killing off that unit with <20% HP might be good to have as a priority in most situations, when the opponent is microing that unit all over the place while the rest of his ranged units are getting free shots on ur units that mindlessly give chase is not good.

I don't want to be in a battle and be more busy counteracting the gambits than actually micromanaging my units manually.

Having unit behavior dictated by gambits is basically handing them over to an A.I. and A.I. sucks, even if it's A.I. set by yourself. Because an A.I. based on multiple true/false conditions will never be thorough enough to cover all situations, and certainly lack any ability to adapt on the fly. And if you make a gambit so thorough that it is even remotely close to manual unit control in function, then you just made it so complex that it is no longer simple enough to be accessible.

Human beings don't have to ask themselves if the condition is true for every little decision they make or every little action they perform. You play SC long enough, you know how to react to specific situations before you even think why. This can never be beaten.

But if there was a strategy game designed from the ground up with gambits in mind, I wouldn't mind giving it a try. It would be interesting to face off opponents and wage war to see who's the more clever strategist in terms of gambits.


okay dude, i think you got the wrong picture.

Sure, IF YOU WANTED to be locked in the gambit menu all game, it might not be that fun. But i bet you a million bucks that if the person you where playing was good at it, he could take 2 of you.

The gambit system basically would have a few parts to make it work...


Firstly, it would be specific to, All Units, A Specific Unit Type, a Specific Fleet or mixed attack force, or just ONE individual unit

Next, it would mostly just be a feature to give each player his or her own edge, with the proper layout, it would only take the first 3 minutes of the game for you to set up your attack plan, then whoop some ass


Secondly, if your gambit was something retarded (like get an SCV to cast PSI STORM), or something that broke syntax, the game would auto matically refer to the default setting for that unit or structure

It would also be VERY easy to program a Click*Key trigger that shut all gambits programmed by the player off for all, or specific units.


I guess i just really want to see SC2 be the best, more revolutionary game and get at least a 9.8 from game spot. There is so much more i could go into about this gambit system, I also have alot of the code worked out, which helps.

so ya, just remember that the gambit system is something that could EASILY be implemented due to the nature of what it is, and also that we are still in Pre-Alpha :)

thanks everyone for being so great!
[/list]

[Remy]

My point is, you make it seem like there's nothing to do in the first three minutes of the game but it isn't so. In a real game, you're busy pretty much every single moment.

If you were taking the first three minutes to setup some good gambits, you're gonna see Zerglings in your base pretty soon.

You barely have enough time to squeeze in building, recon, unit micro, and researching in the time you have as it is. It's only the first two or so workers that you just wait on, but that's about it. Once you start scouting, no more down time.

[jamaylott]

Still though, in 40 seconds, you could EASILY make 4 gambits or so, AND, you could just gambit your SCVs to gather Minerals or Gas, as soon as they are built. saving you more time :)

[Gold]

Still though, in 40 seconds, you could EASILY make 4 gambits or so, AND, you could just gambit your SCVs to gather Minerals or Gas, as soon as they are built. saving you more time :)


if blizzad works the way i think they do, then they build on every last rts in terms of control, i am sure that starcraft 2 will have rally points and shift clicking like warcraft3 does, autocast is another matter.

[Remy]

Rally point like WC3 would mean workers will auto gather resources.

It's a feature that has always been needed in SC, I really doubt that they won't include it in SC2.

[Gold]

i think thats what i said, but no worries ;D

im sure gambits could be useful in big team battles of 8 players or more, bigger numbers and harder micro, it could be a whole new game type for big team

an idea i jsut had about this.
instead of setting up gambits in game you set up gambits out of game, and implement them in game.
so the game would come with some preset ones, and gives you the ability to make your own.
then you should also be able to trade between players, so over time the best and most thought out ones would become also the most used.
If you watch a replay, then you also be able to dowload the gambit there using as well.

It would be a move towards a game with pure stratagie, but maybe not for starcraft2 ;)

[Remy]

Sorry if I repeated what you said. I just wanted to mention auto gathering just in case someone else reading didn't play WC3.

And all in all, I'm still quite uncomfortable about the thought of handing unit control over to A.I. in StarCraft. A lot of things can only be accomplished with good micro in SC. I don't really want to fight a single battle without micromanaging my units.

[jamaylott]

holy cro, 24 posts and couting, !!!!


okay, so here it is.

Perhaps, with a little more thought, Gambitting COULD be a great asset to SC. It would be nice to see thouse 15 Battle cruisers all fire simultaneously on those heavy protoss air units (all at diferent ones), and it could also be kind of cool to watch tanks auto retreat from a guardian wipe.......

IT COULD, also, be cool to add this sort of "trading" strategies between players, and remember..... for EVERY gambit, there is a counter gambit, which is what SC is all About.

and exaple would be if a player had his units auto collecting resources, you could just park a heavy air unit out of range of a marine/Lisk, and just pepper the gather-ers from a distance. So if the player didnt turn off that gambit, it could cost him HUUUGE money.


I just wouldn't want to see Gambits take away from the Micro, but rather, Add to the intesnsity of it.....

KEEP POSTING, maybe one day this will be a good thread :)

[coalescence]

jamaylott, I don't know how much time you got on your hand, but maybe its a idea to make a sc1 a.i. conversion with all your gambit ideas?

[Gold]

i agree, make a game where this actually works, so we can see it in action.
to convince us.

[jamaylott]

i agree, make a game where this actually works, so we can see it in action.
to convince us.



okay, well.... you have all heard the gambit (Who, What ,When, Where) - of this.... hehe, get it.


Heres what i have so far.

* ideas and a limited, but peripheral knowledge on how to write the code,
* The best artist ive known in my life, who also happens to be my friend
* Some cool drawings of some units that appeared in the SC2 invite
annd,
*Contacts at SantaMonicaStudio in california (david jaffe, GOW 1/2)

Heres what i need:


1)Resources that will let me get my hands on the RAW code WITH COMMENTS, (for those of you who have taken Computer Science, say, Java, at the university level will know wtf a comment is. Whith this piece alone, (the "mineral" if you will), I could begin testing it out.

2) Permission to build off the engine

3) Two volunteers


Heres the problems:

Currents, the only part of the code that is available (with my knowledge that is) to the public, is the part that allows you to midify what you see visually, and unit specs.

There isnt any code that will let me rewrite the AI..... thats all that needs to be done.

Is someone basically show me the part of the 30,000 lines of code and say "This compwnent will allow you to controll what the AI does when you encounter it).

When we play AI against the computer, it is run entirely on gambits.

Creating an interface for the user to use COULD be simplified if the user had to enter in the code themselves.... ie: Tribes 1, players could press ~ to bring down the window and hack into the game.

so, if you had a list ready in a window outside of the game, you could simply just copy the lines of code. OR...

Rewrite the code in Short-hand.

in other words.

Science Vessel would be SV, zergling = ZL, Hydralisk = Hy, Zealot = LOT

as for teh commands, it could be as simple as

SCV : Min : NV : Gat

so, the SCV* would go to the Min*eral patrch that was Nearest*Visible and Gat*her the minerals. The nest part that isnt really necessary is the gambit which we ALREADY use in game, and that is for the SCV to bring the minerals back to the base.


You see? Eventhought THERE IS a command for the player to micro to make the SCV return to teh base, the SCV automatically does it.

THATS what the gambit is all about, Teensey-Weansey, scale tapping! nuances that would just add, in my opinion, GREAT FLAVOUR...

I mean, OBVISOULY any human will be able to counter ANY gambit, but wouldnt it be more challenging, and KIND of sweet, if rather than clicking EACH individual BC to fire on EACH each enemy air unit (because other wise you waste like 250 damage).

they could do it them selves, all the while you are building turrets..... i dunno.

what do you guys think?

i would LOVE any input, and WELCOME anyone who would like to put something together, i got about 2 great guys onboard, the artist and a code money.


see ya!

[Gold]

I dont really know anything about code and things like that, i cant really even draw on a computer, but if you need some one to playtest, or to do concept drawrings (jsut in case you want to expand this outside of starcraft) thta i am happy to help.

Im sure if you write a formal and coperative letter to blizzard they may let you use there engine, or give you some advice, my only worry is taht if you wirte as a single person they may not take you seriusly, so maybe form a small company (yes this is getting a little big now..) and then maybe you might get a better response.

if you can seriusly manage resources, then why not jsut simply build a game of this idea, get to gether with a computer prgrammer and a finacial advisor and draw up a buisness plan or something.

for a menu to run gambits in i suggest having a series of buttons to the left above the mini map. each button has a type of gambit on it, you simply jsut press the button and the thing goes into operation, that or using one of the f keys, in warcraft they are used for heros, but waht about starcraft? theres some space there i believe.

[T-man]

<snip>
That was an excellent and very helpful post, Gold:
:powerup:

[Meloku]

having the computer do all these things for you, you might as well just make it play for you.

Just my 2c =P

[Gold]

having the computer do all these things for you, you might as well just make it play for you.

Just my 2c =P


weve already more or less each said that maybe this isnt right for starcraft2, and although there is alot the computer does do for you its still very hard to find a point where it isnt doing to much, but thats no reason not to evolve the idea regardless of sc2

[Meloku]

well I think the "line" was pretty much drawn perfectly in starcraft. If you add this system, you pretty much take away what we players call "micro" and allow the computer to do that for you. I don't see any reason to change it, because what you are asking is to remove the skill portion of the game and make it a chess battle.

[Gold]

i dont think there is a line, somethings are jsut plain annoying and take away from the game.
like not being able to group simillar buildings and build from all of them at the same time.
yes it makes the game harder to play and makes it so there is a large difference in player skills, but it takes away from what the game is actually about and thats fighting battles.
but tahts more my personal preferene than fact, there was a big problem with autocast which many starcraft players didnt like, like i said before its finding that balance between fun and skill.
if the game is to hard and you spend all your time mining minerals, then thats not fun, but neither is having a computer do it all for you.
But once again thats my personal opinoiun.

this idea here is jsut a good, different idea.

[jamaylott]

Wow,

you guys are great.


this has been a terrific thread, and i hope will continue to be.Â* People are making VERY valid arguments, and, if you all will be so kind; and considering i happend to be the wretched troll who brought this whole "gambit" thing up in the first place, i would like to address some of these TERRIFIC comments and replies.

I would like to start with Meloku:

Which is more skillful in your terms......Â* Repeating an action that you have done hundreds of times before, in order to perfect a certain ritual which many other players have.


Or,Â* using a combinatoin of keyboard-mouse dexterity and, - as you so jolly-well presumed i had no clue was - "micro", to defeat an opponent who is not handicapped because they simply HAVENT SPENT AS MANY HOURS as an expert, say like you, has.


Gold, you may be 100% confident of my accord.Â* I too really wish that there was a way to find a balance that allowed me to focus on certain things too.Â* Perhaps, i dunno, this idea might WAY suck, but here goes.



WHAT IF, using a gambit slightly affected that units "preformance"Â* not its EFFICIENTCY, it would be VERY EFFICIENT, but would lack in specific ways.

For example, if an SCV was gambited to collect resources, it would only gather 80% as many resources as it would if the player had microd it.

or, if a player had a certain unit to (say like a HT) to autocast against an enemy as soon as it was visible (rather than that wimpy psi-ttack) it WOULDNT DO AS MUCH DAMAGE.Â* so the player using HT's for defence would have to spend more money producing the HT so that the player could use the PSI-STORM gambit as a defence manouver. Â*

Essentially, it would make for a terrific defence manouver, but would cost significant resources to manage. you see? its not that cheap, but it COULD add something? does this sound at all fair?

or, if you had scvs to repair terran units, it took 50% more than if you commanded them too on your own.
Same with yamamatos, rather than do 250, they only do 175 if its gambitted.


Do you see now?Â* WOULD THIS ACCTUALLY give some balance to this whole crazy idea of mine, or is it just weak?Â* so in a nutshell:

if you gambit, your units wont be as good, and you would therefore recive a BONUS if you micro'd all on your own?


I have a FEW more ideas but I will get to them later i guess....


please, more discussion, this has been a GREAT think-tank :powerup:



sorry for all the typos, and SORRY FOR ALL THE ENTER-PUSHING, bad hhabbit, and i like some of my bad-habbits i guess :)

[mc2]

Resource penalty for gambitting and resource reward for microing will face lots of objections from fans. The whole idea of this RTS game is to test a player's skills on macro, micro and multiskilling. So if a player cannot micro properly, he's already being penalized by the fact that the SCVs won't go and gather resources at all.

[Meloku]

Which is more skillful in your terms...... Repeating an action that you have done hundreds of times before, in order to perfect a certain ritual which many other players have.


Or, using a combinatoin of keyboard-mouse dexterity and, - as you so jolly-well presumed i had no clue was - "micro", to defeat an opponent who is not handicapped because they simply HAVENT SPENT AS MANY HOURS as an expert, say like you, has.


Interesting, but I always thought that micro was more about reflexes and speed, which in my experience doesnt get better with time- it gets worse (over the years... ha ha.) But an interesting point. I believe you are speaking about micro in terms of KNOWING what should be targeting what, and that does indeed take hours of mastering the game to understand. Those of us who have watched the gameplay trailer 20 times are simply learning these lessons the easy way.

Whats that saying, the more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle?

[Remy]

Why shouldn't hard practice pay off again?Â* I'm sorry but I think I missed that part.

What you get out of a game should always depend on how much you are willing to put into it.Â* This is true from both the developers' and gamers' point of view.Â* Why would players keep playing a game if hard time spent isn't rewarding in the end?Â* StarCraft is the game it is because it take such a long time to be able to understand its intricacies, as well as how much room for improvement it provides in terms of micro.

A game isn't fun for the hardcore fan base if anyone could just play a few hard months and have just as much chance to bring down a 5 year veteran who put in sweat and blood.Â* It is for that reason that Blizzard is placing development focus based on hardcore players over focus on casual players for SC2.Â* It is the hard core crowd that will hold the game up 10 years later.

Top athletes are where they are because they have the talent as well as the time put into hard training.Â* It makes no sense to dumb down a sport so most people can compete on even terms, while negating people's natural talents and hard training.Â* If you wanna be at a competitive level in sports, it is only fair that you put in the hard work.

Micro is skill.Â* I'm sick of hearing people throw out some cheap two dollar excuse to degrade the importance of micro because they're too lazy to practice.Â* It is the same thing as saying maphacks are legitimate because moving units around to scout isn't true skill, and people with real skill should do well when the whole map is revealed to everyone.

Unit control has always been a huge part of SC since the very beginning.Â* It isn't gravy on the side that you could take off to your liking.Â* Anyone who doesn't like the idea of practicing to get better at micro should just be content that they are just a casual gamer and have fun at that level.

[Gold]

Wow,

you guys are great.


this has been a terrific thread, and i hope will continue to be. People are making VERY valid arguments, and, if you all will be so kind; and considering i happend to be the wretched troll who brought this whole "gambit" thing up in the first place, i would like to address some of these TERRIFIC comments and replies.

I would like to start with Meloku:

Which is more skillful in your terms...... Repeating an action that you have done hundreds of times before, in order to perfect a certain ritual which many other players have.


Or, using a combinatoin of keyboard-mouse dexterity and, - as you so jolly-well presumed i had no clue was - "micro", to defeat an opponent who is not handicapped because they simply HAVENT SPENT AS MANY HOURS as an expert, say like you, has.


Gold, you may be 100% confident of my accord. I too really wish that there was a way to find a balance that allowed me to focus on certain things too. Perhaps, i dunno, this idea might WAY suck, but here goes.



WHAT IF, using a gambit slightly affected that units "preformance" not its EFFICIENTCY, it would be VERY EFFICIENT, but would lack in specific ways.

For example, if an SCV was gambited to collect resources, it would only gather 80% as many resources as it would if the player had microd it.

or, if a player had a certain unit to (say like a HT) to autocast against an enemy as soon as it was visible (rather than that wimpy psi-ttack) it WOULDNT DO AS MUCH DAMAGE. so the player using HT's for defence would have to spend more money producing the HT so that the player could use the PSI-STORM gambit as a defence manouver.

Essentially, it would make for a terrific defence manouver, but would cost significant resources to manage. you see? its not that cheap, but it COULD add something? does this sound at all fair?

or, if you had scvs to repair terran units, it took 50% more than if you commanded them too on your own.
Same with yamamatos, rather than do 250, they only do 175 if its gambitted.


Do you see now? WOULD THIS ACCTUALLY give some balance to this whole crazy idea of mine, or is it just weak? so in a nutshell:

if you gambit, your units wont be as good, and you would therefore recive a BONUS if you micro'd all on your own?


I have a FEW more ideas but I will get to them later i guess....


please, more discussion, this has been a GREAT think-tank :powerup:



sorry for all the typos, and SORRY FOR ALL THE ENTER-PUSHING, bad hhabbit, and i like some of my bad-habbits i guess :)



i can see what you mean, I still dont think this idea is for starcraft, as remy summed up quite nicely, the player really needs to do the work for the game to be good. Having a computer fighting your battles is never going to be something good for starcraft.

and as vague as the line is between playability and skill, i think your idea maybe a bit to much for starcraft, but like i said, it is still a good idea, and you should definetley evolve it, get it to work maybe using starcraft as a platform, then see where you can go from there.

[Meloku]

wow gold... all I have to say is lol@u for quoting his entire post XD

and I believe that this gambitting business will never exist, as it would pretty much take all the fun out of starcraft.

[jamaylott]

what about settings for Rules of Engagement then?

if each unit/building had its OWN SET of ROE, then perhaps this would be good?

[PowerkickasS]

discretion: my comments may hav alrdy been discussed b4hand, but i cant non-skim-read all dat stuff!
disclaimer: my comments r not intended 2 offend ne1! xP

can u rephrase gambitting as automation? or r dey similar? or r dey totaly difernt?

hey jamay hav u playd settlers 3 or 4? (not sure abt 5). is dat wat ur idea is about gambitting?
i havent seen a game wif proper rts styles + gambitting either unless u can title DoW/supcom that =P

if dis topic is abt whether *Starcraft 2* should alter its gambits? I'll say:
Yes if it promotes a mor beginner-user-friendly/logical control
No if it seriously affects the limit of ingame skills or management, or durastically changes da gameplay

o_O""