Is Micro-Management a bad thing for WZ2100?

[JDW]

After an insight shared by a fellow member Emdek recently,

I was wondering if the community and developers feel that

Warzone2100 should avoid Micro-Management as far as possible?

[Dylan Hsu]

Micromanagement should not be avoided. No reasons need to be given.

[JDW]

Micromanagement should not be avoided. No reasons need to be given.

Interesting, do you think WZ2100 could use some more micro-management?
For instance have a feel of the level of micro-management with M.A.X.Reloaded Units

Now I'm not saying we should implement them all, just looking to see if you would like to see more system turrets in the game?

[Tenoh]

Would be nice as long as a player has an option to micro or let it be managed by the game.

[Crymson]

Micromanagement should not be avoided. No reasons need to be given.

QFT!

[Rman Virgil]

.

Well if you are referring to what is termed twitch, click-fest micromanagement which is favored in Professional Competitive gaming like with SC in the Far East.... then, not really. If I want that type of reflexive experience I prefer playing actual athletic sports like basketball, football, tennis, martial arts, etc.. or if in virtual game worlds then Brawlers, FPS or Sport Sims. Twitch micromanagement in an RTS does not personally rock my world so I am in favor of System Turrets.

- RV

.

[Dylan Hsu]

.

Well if you are referring to what is termed twitch, click-fest micromanagement which is favored in Professional Competitive gaming like with SC in the Far East.... then, not really. If I want that type of reflexive experience I prefer playing actual athletic sports like basketball, football, tennis, martial arts, etc.. or if in virtual game worlds then Brawlers, FPS or Sport Sims. Twitch micromanagement in an RTS does not personally rock my world so I am in favor of System Turrets.

- RV

.

Warzone's game progression is not linear like many 1v1s in Starcraft. I don't think Warzone will ever come down to a contest of Actions-Per-Minute (APM) stats among players, but we shouldn't be trying to dumb it down, either. There's little tricks that don't require lots of motor coordination or twitching.

Here's an example. If you have a truck and four machinegun-viper-wheels, you can take down two machinegun towers. Use the truck to begin constructing a hardcrete wall or even a power generator directly adjacent to one tower, let power accrue, and then maybe do the same for the other one. As it is doing so, cover for it with your tanks. Once the walls are constructed, the towers will be shooting the closest targets, which are the structures. Use this opportunity to destroy the towers, and then demolish your structures to regain the power afterwards.

Another basic RTS micro thing is to concentrate fire. If you and your opponent both have 5 mg tanks with equal research, and your opponent isn't micromanaging, you will come out on top with a little micro. Select your 5 tanks and queue up attack orders on each of your opponent's tanks so they'll each be killed one by one instead of just dealing random damage to the clump. For even better results, retreat your damaged units behind your healthy units.

[themousemaster]

After an insight shared by a fellow member Emdek recently,

I was wondering if the community and developers feel that

Warzone2100 should avoid Micro-Management as far as possible?

One of the reasons I like WZ2100 so much more than SC is because this game is far less micro-intensive.

The Command Tank is one reason for this; while a big target in an MP game, the fact is I can attach a half-dozen units to it, then give it a specific command list (queued attacks or whatnot), as well as general orders (retreat at X damage), and then go back to my other areas and continue strategic developments.

As opposed to starcraft, where the game is not just about APM input, but the "top players" LITERALLY know exactly how many troops to select to attack EACH type of enemy troop to not "waste a bullet"... which the simple "random factor" provided by Experience in WZ helps to avoid, since you have to account for the possibility of miss.

That, and the number of "valid" strats in WZ further reduces the need for micro, as good strategic decisions trump good tactical ones, unlike in, say, Warcraft3, where the single most important ability one can have is to know which hero to build first, and then coddle him as he can often single-handedly wreck the opposition, your own strategic goals be damned.

That is, of course, just me . I'll take a WZ2100, RA2, Ogre Battle, Hearts of Iron3, or heck, even a Civilization CtP game over a WC2, WC3, RA3, or SC game any day of the week.

[JDW]

Here's an example. If you have a truck and four machinegun-viper-wheels, you can take down two machinegun towers. Use the truck to begin constructing a hardcrete wall or even a power generator directly adjacent to one tower, let power accrue, and then maybe do the same for the other one. As it is doing so, cover for it with your tanks. Once the walls are constructed, the towers will be shooting the closest targets, which are the structures. Use this opportunity to destroy the towers, and then demolish your structures to regain the power afterwards.

Another basic RTS micro thing is to concentrate fire. If you and your opponent both have 5 mg tanks with equal research, and your opponent isn't micromanaging, you will come out on top with a little micro. Select your 5 tanks and queue up attack orders on each of your opponent's tanks so they'll each be killed one by one instead of just dealing random damage to the clump. For even better results, retreat your damaged units behind your healthy units.

Smart tips, thanks Dylan, will surely try these out...

[Rman Virgil]

.

Dylan I do agree with the truth & value of all that you've expressed in your post.

However I do believe there is room for improvement in the area involving the mechanics of cognitive switch-tasking between Combat & Non-combat duties.

IMHO, it can be more elegant & thereby more empowering, expansive & fun for a majority of folks who are at present not having that kind of experience in MP and thus stick strictly to Ski, slowing the game speed as well, these mainly being counter meausures to how the extant switch-tasking mechanics work between Non-Combat imperatives & the scope of Combat options and their being able to enjoy the whole play experience quite a bit more.

Since this consideration has factored into the designs of my WZ creations for a while now, any dev work along these lines is not something I feel particulalry vociferous about - if ya get my drift.

- RV

.

[JDW]

.

Dylan I do agree with the truth & value of all that you've expressed in your post.

However I do believe there is room for improvement in the area involving the mechanics of cognitive switch-tasking between Combat & Non-combat duties.

IMHO, it can be more elegant & thereby more empowering, expansive & fun for a majority of folks who are at present not having that kind of experience in MP and thus stick strictly to Ski, slowing the game speed as well, mainly these being counter meausures to how the extant switch-tasking mechanics work between Non-Combat imperatives & the scope of Combat options..

- RV

.

Respect

[Zarel]

One of the reasons I like WZ2100 so much more than SC is because this game is far less micro-intensive.

The Command Tank is one reason for this; while a big target in an MP game, the fact is I can attach a half-dozen units to it, then give it a specific command list (queued attacks or whatnot), as well as general orders (retreat at X damage), and then go back to my other areas and continue strategic developments.

As opposed to starcraft, where the game is not just about APM input, but the "top players" LITERALLY know exactly how many troops to select to attack EACH type of enemy troop to not "waste a bullet"... which the simple "random factor" provided by Experience in WZ helps to avoid, since you have to account for the possibility of miss.

That, and the number of "valid" strats in WZ further reduces the need for micro, as good strategic decisions trump good tactical ones, unlike in, say, Warcraft3, where the single most important ability one can have is to know which hero to build first, and then coddle him as he can often single-handedly wreck the opposition, your own strategic goals be damned.

That is, of course, just me . I'll take a WZ2100, RA2, Ogre Battle, Hearts of Iron3, or heck, even a Civilization CtP game over a WC2, WC3, RA3, or SC game any day of the week.

This sums up my feelings perfectly.

Micromanagement should not be avoided like anathema (a good game has plenty of both macro and micro), but Warzone has a good ratio that shouldn't be changed too much.

[Rman Virgil]

.

Let me first quote Tom Cadwell over at Game Dev Net because he refers to what I was directly talking about in my last post AND this also connects IMHO to the solution, "Commanders", which was raised by themousemaster as already an optimal differentiation from other RTSs in the way of more satisfying game play:

Imbalances Across Skill Levels:

As players improve in skill, the relative effectiveness of game choices may change. If one choice is easy to use well, and another is extremely difficult to use well, then it follows that to an expert player, the relative effectiveness of the two options is very different than the same to a new player. This is a common trap for game developers, since most are closer to the "Expert" side of things, and as a result often lose sight of the new player. On the other end of this equation, is the fact that "evolving" game play with regards to skill is generally considered a good thing. It is important to be aware of this balance, and be aware of this phenomena in general.

And for good measure...

Sid Meier once said, "A game is a collection of interesting choices". It follows that game elements being out of balance and thereby eliminating choices detracts from the game play.

All imbalances come back to the original essence of imbalance: choice elimination.

There are endless Non-Combat choices in WZ which all directly narrow the scope of Combat options, especially for the NON-expert players. These can be addressed through the switch tasking mechanics between Non-Combat and Combat decision making modes specifically by way of "Commander" mechanics which IMO have NOT already reached the Mount Everest of effective functionality.

A year ago, as whipper, I created a thread that aggregated 10 years worth of concerns with Commander functionality:

Commander Command Improvements -- What ? Details ?

- RV

.