by “legit info” I mean stuff that is already openly available to the user under the rules, e.g. the shape of the map and the location of visible units, not the hidden stuff that could be extracted via hacking. Are there bots that would, let’s say, automatically manipulate game controls to quickly look at various areas, use image recognition to extract meaningful information about the situation and provide the player with a distilled report? Or, extending of that, not just report on the situation but let’s say also provide for a more intelligent and powerful interface for controlling a skirmish or the resource gathering, in order to beat the opponent in the “clickfest” type of match?
The “legit” aspect strikes me as questionable. Even if the info itself is legit, your proposed use of it is definitely not.
I know, it would be a violation of TOS. But hey, why not. And if everybody starts using such hypothetical bots, everybody would benefit from, in essence, a new and improved user interface that the game developer themselves were not providing.
Stomping the skill curve only benefits terrible players. Your program doesn’t exist though, since pretty much everyone in the world considers it cheating.
Image recognition and tactical & strategic appraisal are some of the most difficult computing tasks you can think of, and you’re wanting to combine both of them in a strap-on app? People have a hard enough time writing half-decent RTS AI even when it’s built into the game and has access to all the data.
Small tasks are easy, at least. In the same manner that aimbots work, you could make something that automates your units to always focus fire, or retreat when hurt, but just it takes no thought at all to rattle off scenarios where you wouldn’t want them doing that. If you mutate the automation into something the player has to actively enable then it’s functionally just an extension to the game UI.
On that note, I’m a big believer that the future of the RTS genre lies in UI development. The goal should be to enable players to work smarter instead of harder. If a common game event is micromanaging 12 different wounded units out of groups and to rear holding areas then the game itself should have a method to perform that action without a flurry of spastic clicking.
This statement’s relevance is entirely dependent on how you’re defining the word skill.
Let’s take an absurd hypothetical. You’re playing a game of chess next to a small minature golf set piece. Every time you go to make a move on the chess board, you have to stop and make a hole-in-one or you forfeit your turn. This game is neither chess, nor is it minature golf, but a mish-mash of the two. There’s skill involved in it, several different types, even. The fellow making this thread is pondering what the game would be like if you provided a laser-guided putter. It doesn’t necessarily make him a sick, twisted monster.
The RTS genre is a strange beast. On the one hand you have the Starcraft 1 players who consider a crippled 15-year old user interface to be mandatory, and on the other hand you have the games that allow some range of tactical scripting. It’s not about being different places on some arbitrary “skill curve”, it’s about aiming at different axes entirely.
Dark Reign, released in 1997, already had this, as well as a large number of other useful options for automating units. It was a really great game; I’m not sure why it never became a hit.
I hear Starcraft 2 may have a slightly different user experience than SC1.
A scripting language to automate certain combat tasks could be interesting. I’m imagining something that would operate much like the Gambit system in Final Fantasy 12.
Imagine something like this list for a SC2 Stalker:
If self.health <= 30% then Blink(nearest_enemy(), 180)
This would automate the Stalkers blinking away from the nearest enemy if they are being focus fired down. Whether you require the player to manually execute a battle tactic, or just be aware of it and select it at the right time makes for two very different games. I think that both types of game could be fun, though.
As for Starcraft 2, I think that the micro game is such an ingrained part of Blizzard RTS now, and Blizzard clearly wanted to retain most of the feel of the orignal Starcraft.
Mekhazzio, yes, my point exactly about making the UI more powerful. It would have been nicer if the game developers were to provide ability to write custom scripts for this purpose using internal data, but if not, maybe this could be done using basic image recognition and automated mouse.
I was a big fan of Dark Reign, great game. I too consider it the first real step on the way towards an advanced RTS UI, it was the first game that improved on the basic model that C&C (the original) introduced way back when. Alas, not too many other games have gone anywhere beyond that INCLUDING its own sequel (which was horrible). There have been a few that had scripting, interesting from a concept POV, but none of them strapped it into the backbone of solid gameplay and so died in obscurity before they got anywhere.
I agree that Blizzard is pretty locked into the sort of game they’ve made. Starcraft is such a phenomenon that if they’d done anything too radical with the sequel they’d have mobs with pitchforks at their front door. Actually, the UI is a lot more capable than I was expecting from them. I also don’t have anything against the Starcraft style of micromanagement game - I’ve played quite a bit of those sorts of games over the years (including SC) and I like the SC2 beta enough that I’ll be grabbing the final the moment it goes live.
I just wish that the other dimensions of RTS would get explored more.
I think that RTS games could benefit immensely from a system like Dragon Age’s Tactics. Just simple things would be nice, like “If you have more than minerals put [y] of [unit] in build queue.” Or “If [move] is on cooldown, and HP is above use [move] up to times on unit with highest [attribute]. Reset counter on [reset condition (i.e. new battle)].”
Why not just get rid of active resource gathering?
Aside from that, it would be neat to have a way to go beyond placing “building waypoints” for new units. For example, tasking a base to defend a particular area of the map by maintaining a certain level of forces there, and creating priorities for particular bases to be given use of resources first. Hearts of Iron 3 (WW2 grand strategy sim) sort of has this, where you can create Theater commands under a headquarters and task it with a particular objective (like tasking OKH with taking Warsaw). The Theater HQ assesses the enemy and requests a certain mix of units, which you can choose to build from the production screen. The headquarters AI generally completes its objectives in a reasonable manner.
Resource gathering serves several useful purposes. It presents a ready choice between short term strength and long term investment and it rewards territory control in a more natural and less arbitrary manner than a “control point victory” method. There’s a variety of ways of doing it, too. A constant flow system like Dark Reign had means winning is measured in comparative rates of resource losses rather than set piece battles, and a surge & exhaust method like the ___Craft games have provides an intuitive progression into “sudden death” play to resolve an endgame. Resource economics is too powerful of a gameplay tool to just pitch entirely and the games that have done so have suffered for it. ( I’m looking at you, DoW2 & C&C4)
OTOH, some games do great with set-piece battles alone. Consider Total War games : you buy an army at the start of the game, and that’s it. That’s what you’ve got, and what you get to play with for the rest of the game. Losing even just the one unit due to a stupid decision or plain inattention is crippling. And destroying your opponent’s big gold sink killer unit is a real achievement.
That’s RTS skills at its finest : there’s little need to know how to click like a frenzied chimp on uppers, nor to know a whole dictionary worth of keyboard short-cuts (even though of course, both help a bit). Battles become all about selection of forces, combined arms manoeuvres, and actual strategy instead of a rushfest. Plus, it looks awesome 
On a much deeper level, you’ve got the Combat Mission games, which are also based on buying your army first, then duking it out for control of the map’s objectives, only this time it’s in simultaneous turn-by-turn (both opponents plan their moves, then everything is resolved in real time for the next minute, then it’s back to planning). I don’t think I’ve ever played a better strat game. It’s a shame the AI wasn’t up to snuff… and that the game looks like it was made in '95.
1895.
I don’t entirely agree with this because World in Conflict is one of my favorite games and it ditched the resource gathering and base building entirely. But maybe I wasn’t clear. When I said “active” resource gathering, I meant with gatherer/peon units. Why even have those at this point? Just have resource nodes that you can cap that provide a constant trickle.
Because, as Mekhazzio said, the strategic option to drop worker production and compromise your long-term productivity in order to boost your army size in the short-term, adds depth to the game.
And to be fair, Dawn of War 2 had way bigger problems than removing the macro game… like also removing the micro game… and terrible balance… and game breaking patches.
You say “depth,” I say “micromanagement”…
But you could still maintain that kind of depth without needing worker units. Production sliders, for example.
You should try Dawn of War 2. You’ll love it.
I liked DoW1, but I have to say, you haven’t exactly given part 2 a glowing recommendation.