Explanations on GAMBITTING!

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?

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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.

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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.

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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.

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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

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.

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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.

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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.

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

Very true.
However now we are progressing into the Realism issue
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!

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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
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

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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.

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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.

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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.

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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.

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

HOLY CRAP!!! you guys are AWESOMEEEE


okay, now for my turn heh heh heh!!

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]

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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.

 

Re: more on GAMBITTING!!!

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