(1) Yes, to be clear, I wasn't talking about this particular detail. The history of RTS macro is a diverse landscape of subtle but important details.

(2) This is a good point, and the C&C example was perhaps the best 'different' style you could possibly name (Supreme Commander also uses something similar to this, except it involves builder units causing the acceleration). In Warcraft II and Starcraft (the 'normal' style, includes Age of Empires, Age of Mythology etc. etc.), each building was independent of the other with their own build queues etc.

The buildings would have to be selected individually and units pumped individually. This might seem like an inconvenience to some, but it is actually an ESSENTIAL balance mechanism in higher levels of play. Making macro too easy (for example, Warcraft III) devalues it and makes micro much more important. In Starcraft, a player can choose whether to go more micro or more macro, and his choice will have an enormous effect on the way he plays and his strengths and weaknesses. It isn't necessarily true either that the best players have a 'solid' mix of both. One can go fairly heavily one way or the other with good results.

A tiny detail like MBS (multiple building selection) is a huge factor - and there is a debate amongst the progamer community about the presence of MBS in the upcoming Starcraft II. Even some Blizzard folk feel it makes macro too easy - the question is how to make macro harder in some other way? Sorry for the slightly offtopic, just some interesting history (in my opinion).

Concerning Sins, MBS and things like that are not issues mainly because of the game speed. Everything in the game (EVERYTHING) is there to reduce the required speed of thought/action as much as possible. It's an interesting experiment from the viewpoint of a competitive RTS gamer. And yes, the interface in this game is as effortless as it could possibly be. The only 'bothersome' micro thing I find myself doing is manual scouting.

Hahhah, now that's an awesome view of things, Mettra! And that's one of the reasons why Starcraft remains one of my favorite RTS games. It was so flexible that the very flexibility made such an extensive game, giving such variable feels. I'll still pop that in and play it, even now, a decade (8 years from the expansion) later. It always feels new, since it's so easy to change your play style. At least, imho

I agree that MBS needs to be used carefully. Personally, I'd support the side that's against making macro too easy. Just being able to dig my hands into the big picture makes the game fun. But what makes SoaSE different, imo, is that it's HUGE, and even with simplifying macro, and even micro, there is plenty to get my hands into to keep busy. So while stuff like MBS and Empire trees should be used sparingly, it's still got a place.



One more point. The Factory that is first selected influences what the first available factory is.

And lol @ the Troll comment.

(1) Just thought I'd follow up a bit on my earlier comments. It's not that WCIII isn't balanced - it's that the gameplay isn't as diverse (my earlier post kinda seemed to imply this after I read over it a bit). All the exciting stuff happens with 1 or 2 CTRL groups AT the battle itself. Expansion is downright boring compared to Starcraft by pretty much anyone's standard.

Starcraft has a 'balance' of strength between micro and macro so that a player can max out on one or the other or have some mix in between to get different 'combinations'. The situational analysis in Starcraft is worlds beyond WCIII simply because ALL of WCIII is the micromanagement of individual battles.

You wanna build more units? Put your 4 barracks into a CTRL group, hit that CTRL key during a fight and press some hotkeys, then switch back to the battle (1-2 seconds have elapsed). Not even a thought is given to something like this. In Starcraft, you have to take your attention away from everything else in order to macro more successfully. The largest contributing factor, though, to WCIII 'smallness' (i.e. no 'big picture' to be found) is the harsh army size penalty and the small unit cap. All these things tend to remove 'real' macro from the game.

So while some people may prefer the micro-heavy style of play, I personally favor the micro-macro balance. The implication of all this, by the way, is that the interface is a CORE part of a game's balance. Consider the 12 unit selection limit in SC, and the 150 unit limit selection in SC2. That simple effect is going to make worlds of difference and change pretty much the entire game simply because of the choices for CTRL group management.

Again, sorry for more slightly off-topicness.

(2) I think you are onto something there. Sins does have a 'bigness' about it. The main thing that is 'big' about it, though, is the amount of time you have to actually execute things. Speed of execution is marginalized to a grand extent in this game. The pace is less furious, although not any less exciting (in my opinion). It really gives you that turn-based 'sit back and think' kind of feel because the utter scale of everything allows you to think thoroughly and still act quickly enough. There's not really any furiously dexterous CTRL/TAB/hotkey wizardry going on at any time. Units move very slowly and predictably, movement paths are finite, the economy is automated to a large extent, and the progression of power in the game is fairly linear (in terms of research). It all really boils down to that nebulous idea of 'strategy.' They did a pretty fair job cutting the 'fat' of execution from the game and focusing on the strategy.

I don't think there is really any kind of issue with MBS and such. The game itself was designed around the whole idea of eliminating the execution of micro and macro. It's very interesting, and they've been able to come up with a truly kickass interface (in terms of its usefulness) since they are not 'hindered' by any kind of micro-macro balance constraint. The only juggling or voodoo done here is situational analysis.

Before the patch I noticed that ships would come out from each factory instead of decreased build times depending on how many you place.

(eg. 4 frigate factories = 4 ships at a time)

It still makes sense atm but IMO it was better when more than one can be built at a time.

Hmm. It seems you are not reading because I read every single post before I reply to a thread. And sorry for the double post before.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT BUILDING MULTIPLE FACTORIES. STOP STARTING FOOLISH ARGUMENTS WITH ME WHEN YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

And that's why, IMO, this game is a better RTS even than Starcraft. And keep in mind, I love Starcraft. Still play it. But a player who can memorize ridiculous amounts of hotkeys has a measureable advantage...Sins eliminates that as a game skill and makes tactical management and strategic planning far more important, IMO.

PhonSiEtm, as a major contributor to the research in this thread, I believe I may have a bit more clout then Sideshow_. That being said, I can agree that you are being a troll, especially after that Screaming trantum you exhibited in reply #87.

I should like to make two points:

-We've already proven that individual build times do not change with more factories.
-We've already demonstrated several methods of ship extraction with multiple factories.

Serondal, I already said that. Take a look at this portion of my post at reply #49:



Admittedly, there is nearly 2 whole pages of wasteful trolling between then and now, but still, you could've read at least the viable portions before posting that. Some of us have been getting ticked off at the frequent acts of trolling, and patience is wearing thin enough to give us itchy trigger fingers. Just look at Kruelgor. But at least you took the time out to spell out additional values in a single post. So I like your post anyways. Nice consolidation makes for a prettier picture.

Hey Mettra, I'll have to admit that I didn't always use the Ctrl grouping when possible. Hmm, maybe that could've saved me a few losses But when I did use it, it certainly was a valuable tool. I guess that's just one of those macro controls that makes microing so much viable and easier, and makes those games more lasting then games that didn't incorporate those macro aspects. Anyways, I've got a lot of digesting to do. You put out a lot of info I need to think about.

Dude, I appreciate the backup but posting 10 times as much doesn't give you any extra clout. I tested the factories and posted here. In fact, my post falls right after your first, and your first doesn't have anything substantial to it except to say that ships can come out of one or many factories. Nothing you've posted since regarding the mechanics of factory queues has added anything to my original.

Glad we agree on the issue though

Oh, no question though I don't think he's narrowminded so much as he's deliberately trying to antagonise. Either way.

"troll" is such an ugly word. Aren't we all just people expressing our opinions?

I am sorry for being a narrow minded troll and will never do it again.
(I did not notice I was on the last page of the thread so I could not find where everyone found out everything.)


lol and all I did was make you type so i affected your life in some way!!!