4 ms·

IMO games should encourage ergonomic aids. Why allow the UI to be a limiting factor to how you want to play? For example people used to talk about APM in SC2 a

IMO games should encourage ergonomic aids. Why allow the UI to be a limiting factor to how you want to play? For example people used to talk about APM in SC2 as a sort of measure of how good someone is. Why should that be? It's a strategy game. Imagine if you could express your ideas effectively into actual game actions?

misterprime 8y ago
APM was certainly an impressive stat that conveyed the level of athleticism required for e-sports. Of course, you're right, if the goal is who can strategize the best then APM shouldn't be a factor. The playing field needs to be level though. Perhaps something like Formula 1 or Le Mans racing will develop for e-sports where people are allowed to fine tune their input with custom code with certain regulations for those inputs.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
It's real-time strategy. So part of it is how you react to things, as well.
aetimmes 8y ago
>IMO games should encourage ergonomic aids. Why allow the UI to be a limiting factor to how you want to play? For the same reason that sporting organizations regulate the equipment allowed during play - the make sure the playing field is reasonably level. >For example people used to talk about APM in SC2 as a sort of measure of how good someone is. Why should that be? Because dexterity has historically been a basis for comparison in recreational competition. >It's a strategy game. It's a real-time strategy game, which is an important distinction. Chess is a strategy game, and by its design guarantees each player an equal number of moves. SC2 is a real-time strategy game which makes no such guarantees, and if you have the dexterity to execute your strategy faster than your opponent can respond to, you should be rewarded for that. >Imagine if you could express your ideas effectively into actual game actions? Imagine the cost of such an interface in today's society, especially compared to a regular USB keyboard and mouse. Now imagine you're a game designer. Do you want to build a system that explicitly favors those rich enough to purchase the best equipment, or do you want to spread your playerbase as widely as possible? Perhaps in another few decades, we can start rewarding the people with the "best" brains, but as long as we exist in meatspace, people are going to want to test their meat-skills against each other.
- maerF0x0 8y ago
  > Imagine the cost of such an interface in today's society, especially compared to a regular USB keyboard and mouse. Now imagine you're a game designer. Do you want to build a system that explicitly favors those rich enough to purchase the best equipment, or do you want to spread your playerbase as widely as possible? While I kind of understand the Ready Player One-esque issue here, I am thinking that most ergonomic aids would look more like software plugins for WoW or EVE than professionally developed HCI hardware. If I were to be leading a game I'd just make it a requirement that tools were opensourced (hard to enforce in reality tbh) but at least that would help.
portaljester 8y ago
StarCraft is not just a strategy game. It is a real time strategy game. The focus on real time is why APM and micro etc are so important. Broodwar is my personal favorite game, on the surface it is easy to not know video games can be physically taxing.
echohack5 8y ago
(As a former high level StarCraft / SC2 player / caster). It's not chess. That's why. There is a real physical aspect to the game. Training your fingers to hit certain combinations quickly to execute build orders, and mix in micro is key. Pro players use hot packs to warm up their hands, or glasses to aid their eyes. The game developer takes a lot of care to ensure the UI / hotkeys / peripheral setups are optimized for pro players. Using external tools to defeat this setup simply isn't fair and diminishes skill built into the hands and muscle memory of players. Even at a mid-level of skill, people learn simple combos. For example, a Protoss player hitting "4+e" because that's where they have hotkeyed all their Nexuses and e is the hotkey to build probes.
- maerF0x0 8y ago
  Many responses are saying the same thing, so I'm going to respond to you ... > It's not chess. I agree it's not chess, and chess often has a time component to it. The realtime nature of a game doesnt mean you should have to be able to "move" in realtime, IMO it would be superior if it tracked more closely to your ability to react, intellectually, in realtime. That is, real time thought more than realtime motion. Ergonomic aids would help people to convert their thoughts into real game plays without limiting them to their body's capabilities. But I also admit this is my opinion and it's clearly an arbitrarily decided dividing line between how much should a game be about myelinating certain move patterns (spread out troops, cast a spell, select production groups) and how much a game should be about quality of thought in realtime (I see he made units X, How am i going to respond? I have many minerals, should I spend them on tech or units?) ...
  - bllguo 8y ago
    I don't understand why you're so intent on doubling down here. There are other strategy games out there that focus on strategy more than micro mechanics. Why not play those instead? I don't think "I want to play Starcraft but without micro" is a compelling argument for changing Starcraft. I actually think it's pretty selfish to make these demands. It's a reasonable premise for finding or even creating a new game.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gibybo 8y ago
Games aren't really about getting you to solve a problem, they are about making something fun. Making something fun is a lot easier when you control the UI completely. Letting the users build their own UI places a lot of constraints on what you can build in the game and still be fun.

misterprime 8y ago

APM was certainly an impressive stat that conveyed the level of athleticism required for e-sports. Of course, you're right, if the goal is who can strategize the best then APM shouldn't be a factor. The playing field needs to be level though. Perhaps something like Formula 1 or Le Mans racing will develop for e-sports where people are allowed to fine tune their input with custom code with certain regulations for those inputs.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

It's real-time strategy. So part of it is how you react to things, as well.

aetimmes 8y ago

>IMO games should encourage ergonomic aids. Why allow the UI to be a limiting factor to how you want to play? For the same reason that sporting organizations regulate the equipment allowed during play - the make sure the playing field is reasonably level. >For example people used to talk about APM in SC2 as a sort of measure of how good someone is. Why should that be? Because dexterity has historically been a basis for comparison in recreational competition. >It's a strategy game. It's a real-time strategy game, which is an important distinction. Chess is a strategy game, and by its design guarantees each player an equal number of moves. SC2 is a real-time strategy game which makes no such guarantees, and if you have the dexterity to execute your strategy faster than your opponent can respond to, you should be rewarded for that. >Imagine if you could express your ideas effectively into actual game actions? Imagine the cost of such an interface in today's society, especially compared to a regular USB keyboard and mouse. Now imagine you're a game designer. Do you want to build a system that explicitly favors those rich enough to purchase the best equipment, or do you want to spread your playerbase as widely as possible? Perhaps in another few decades, we can start rewarding the people with the "best" brains, but as long as we exist in meatspace, people are going to want to test their meat-skills against each other.

maerF0x0 8y ago
> Imagine the cost of such an interface in today's society, especially compared to a regular USB keyboard and mouse. Now imagine you're a game designer. Do you want to build a system that explicitly favors those rich enough to purchase the best equipment, or do you want to spread your playerbase as widely as possible? While I kind of understand the Ready Player One-esque issue here, I am thinking that most ergonomic aids would look more like software plugins for WoW or EVE than professionally developed HCI hardware. If I were to be leading a game I'd just make it a requirement that tools were opensourced (hard to enforce in reality tbh) but at least that would help.

portaljester 8y ago

StarCraft is not just a strategy game. It is a real time strategy game. The focus on real time is why APM and micro etc are so important. Broodwar is my personal favorite game, on the surface it is easy to not know video games can be physically taxing.

echohack5 8y ago

(As a former high level StarCraft / SC2 player / caster). It's not chess. That's why. There is a real physical aspect to the game. Training your fingers to hit certain combinations quickly to execute build orders, and mix in micro is key. Pro players use hot packs to warm up their hands, or glasses to aid their eyes. The game developer takes a lot of care to ensure the UI / hotkeys / peripheral setups are optimized for pro players. Using external tools to defeat this setup simply isn't fair and diminishes skill built into the hands and muscle memory of players. Even at a mid-level of skill, people learn simple combos. For example, a Protoss player hitting "4+e" because that's where they have hotkeyed all their Nexuses and e is the hotkey to build probes.

maerF0x0 8y ago
Many responses are saying the same thing, so I'm going to respond to you ... > It's not chess. I agree it's not chess, and chess often has a time component to it. The realtime nature of a game doesnt mean you should have to be able to "move" in realtime, IMO it would be superior if it tracked more closely to your ability to react, intellectually, in realtime. That is, real time thought more than realtime motion. Ergonomic aids would help people to convert their thoughts into real game plays without limiting them to their body's capabilities. But I also admit this is my opinion and it's clearly an arbitrarily decided dividing line between how much should a game be about myelinating certain move patterns (spread out troops, cast a spell, select production groups) and how much a game should be about quality of thought in realtime (I see he made units X, How am i going to respond? I have many minerals, should I spend them on tech or units?) ...
- bllguo 8y ago
  I don't understand why you're so intent on doubling down here. There are other strategy games out there that focus on strategy more than micro mechanics. Why not play those instead? I don't think "I want to play Starcraft but without micro" is a compelling argument for changing Starcraft. I actually think it's pretty selfish to make these demands. It's a reasonable premise for finding or even creating a new game.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gibybo 8y ago

Games aren't really about getting you to solve a problem, they are about making something fun. Making something fun is a lot easier when you control the UI completely. Letting the users build their own UI places a lot of constraints on what you can build in the game and still be fun.