"FA vs <insert popular game here>" and micro.

[uberge3k]

I was originally writing a response to this thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2798 before realizing that it had very little to do with the original subject and didn't want to derail it further. It really got me thinking though.

The interesting thing about that thread is that there, and pretty much everywhere else that I've seen similar discussions, most people claim that FA is much better than SC2 because "it doesn't revolve around micro".

However, if FA were as popular as SC2, it would revolve around micro. Just the same as SC2, DotA, LoL, CS, or literally any other competitive real-time game.

The reason is simple: there can only be one optimal set of actions for any given scenario. This applies to *any* game. It's simple logic: if both players know what they must do, the victor will be whomever executes it more efficiently.

Yes, FA has more strategic options than any of those games. Yes, that means that it would take longer for the very top players to discover those optimal sets of actions, simply by virtue of the fact that there are more options and more possible situations.

No, it won't mean that micro wouldn't be literally the only thing deciding high level games in our theoretical dream of FA being as popular as SC2.

In other words, if FA were as popular as any of those games, its top-tier gameplay would likely to be similarly micro-intensive as any of those other games. In a way, it would become exactly what many proponents of FA seem to dislike.


To be honest, I believe that that is exactly what attracts a certain group of people to FA: the ability to become "good" at the game (yay I'm in the top 500! yay I'm in the top 10%! etc) with far less effort than it would take to become one of the top x% in any of those other games. Several highly rated players have cited exactly this reason as for why they prefer FA to <insert popular game>.

So, assuming that is true, this means that what some people actually mean when they say "FA has more strategy than XYZ" is "FA is not played at as high of a level as XYZ; therefore, competition isn't as intense, and you can always try to get lucky with a snipe even when you're losing".

(Please note that I am in no way disparaging this opinion - it's a perfectly justifiable, incredibly human, reaction)


Lastly, if all of the above is true, would the same group who dislike micro-intensive gameplay dislike FA if it were popular? Of course not. It would still be fun at their level.

And that's ultimately the only reason that we play games to begin with: to have fun. It's up to each of us to individually decide what that definition is.


What does all this mean?

I don't know. Perhaps someone else does.

[Gowerly]

FA players are in no way as good at FA as SC2 players are at SC2.

The thing about FA is that the micro skill ceiling is impossibly high. FA is simulated, the projectiles are deterministic and you can avoid them. This means that it's theoretically possible to individually command each unit to avoid incoming fire. People, obviously, do not do this. However, someone that practiced and practiced would, eventually, win due to this.

SC2's effective APM caps out around 300. More than that is generally useless. FA's would cap out somewhere around 15000. This is physically impossible to do.

Therefore the best players will be the ones that get hte most use out of the APM they can do. People, obviously, aren't doing this right now. This means the players with the better mechanics and high level strategies are the ones currently doing the best.

[FunkOff]

I believe gowerly is essentially correct. I will add that FA/FAF also requires a balance between micor/macro: After all, a superior strategy will render micro all but useless. Therefore, investing more effort/attention into macro/strategic decisions can often be worthwhile at the cost of lower tactical APM. This is, perhaps, one of the things that makes FA better than SC2... where the entire battle is usually won or lost depending on APM in individuals engagements.

[uberge3k]

That is an excellent point, and one that I'd like to expand on a bit, since when discussing the topic it's a frequent point of confusion:

SC2's effective APM caps out around 300. More than that is generally useless. FA's would cap out somewhere around 15000. This is physically impossible to do.

Therefore the best players will be the ones that get hte most use out of the APM they can do.

That would then mean that each player would have an "effective APM" value. Assuming equal levels of practice, it would likely come down to UI limitations as FA's UI is somewhat laggy compared to a game such as SC2's.

Therefore, the theoretical limit of micro would come down to the most efficient use of that APM. For example, if it is possible to perfectly micro 10 engagements simultaneously, and there are 15 about to happen, the concept of "micro" expands to choosing the best 10 to focus on. This ties in to the previously mentioned concept of "there can only be one perfect reaction to a set of circumstances".

[Zock]

The needed APM for macro is relative constant, any additional APM you got, you'll invest into micro.

But this constant APM needed for macro is in FA higher then in starcraft, so FA will never be "as micro intensive" as starcraft, even when you will use more then 50% of your APM for micro. I.e. when the micro macro ratio in starcraft will be 80/20, it will propably be 60/40 in FA.

Even when you would use 500 APM for micro, you'd still use more APM for macro then in starcraft. As maco is strategy (or tactic, if you are accurate), FA has indeed more strategy then starcraft, even when it will have/demand more micro aswell.

[ColonelSheppard]

competition only comes by challanges, and i think we might have a small lakc there (looking at the Top10 players that did not really change since a long time)

[SeraphimLeftNut]

Really glad to see UBER on the forums and on FAF again. Always great to read and argue with someone who has logic.

I think micro in FA is the most important part on all levels. A great example of this was a game from the U1200 WWPC final from this week where Aulex was about to go 2:0 up vs CrayzyNath but was unable to properly micro his swiftwinds to take out the t2 ghetto snipe agaist his acu, he eventually lost the series. The difference between killing the ghetto and leaving it in the red, was a single move order.

I think Gowerly's comment sums it up and is exactly what TLO said. You just can't micro everything, so part of your strategy becomes choosing what to micro.

This should be the answer to those who ask what is the difference between FA and other RTS games.
"You can't micro everything in Supcom FA, but you really want to."

[Flynn]

So essentially SupCom is more strategic, but not in the way the developers intended

[Zavior]

So essentially SupCom is more strategic, but not in the way the developers intended

Indeed. By everyone being bad, there is more leeway for sub-optimal strategies which fanboys like to interpret as 'more strategic' You can find similarities in every, every game. If you are not at the very top, you can do pretty much whatever you want and have success. But as the gameplay gets more refined, the amount of viable options gets drastically reduced.
Should there be enough time and players willing to improve, the best strategy will be found. And at that point, both parties do the same strategy and only the execution(micro/macro) matters. I don't think that time will come though.

[Sunny]

1. All RTS are utlimately logistics contest, it's just a matter of what you deliver.
2. Macro is micro too. A very stupid sort of micro, tbh. Now, for example, you can get free mex ups just clicking rocks and trees manually constantly.
3. Getting advantage leads to win.
4. On decent level, advantage is achieved by micro or by gambling. As game procedes, advantage tends to grow.

Gambling erly on in FA revolves around lab harassment engie position guesses, comm pushes (should be nerfed IMO), going early air, that's all.

So, on good level, FA is not actually that complex at all. You can see good illustration of what I'm speaking of looking some riff's Palms replays (he played hundreds of games on single map). Winning vs top players like vs nothing with just good BO, manual reclaim, good fac placement, and 8-minute game strategy is like nothing complex at all - this is the nature of FA. And by good I don't mean perfect, as it was possible (i did tests) to have more tanks and mass, then he did, this just illustrates, that FA gameplay heavily revolves around clicking (macro, micro), tempo, and how the gamplay is actually rigid.