Types of RTS Skill

I've previously thought and written a little about the different skills that different RTS games required or reward, so upon seeing someone else's list I thought it was time to write my own. It grew too large for discord so I decided to make it into a post. I just made it up and it is tentative, but maybe some of you will find it interesting.

The idea I am exploring is that different (competitive) RTS games seem to encourage and reward players for focusing on different skills. This can be a nice way to reconcile the differences between distinct styles of game without having to conclude that one is better than the other. The point isn't to say that it is better for a game to test logistics than it is for it to test mechanics, the point is to have categories within which games that focus on different skills can succeed at being the type of game they are trying to be.

The user DeltaV in defense position started the topic and wrote a list on the wayward strategy discord.

Clairvoyance
Seeing things that are unseen, feeling when something is off. Is your opponent behaving a little unusually? Perhaps they are being overly defensive with an army, are they saving up for something? Perhaps they are aggressively killing off scouts that move towards an area. Perhaps they are performing a tech switch, hiding an all-in, or have a hidden expansion in the corner of the map. Are they moving their raiders suspiciously, trying to force the battle into an area, potentially indicating a minefield.

Valuation
Weighing the value of your options, often on the fly as windows of opportunity close. Is it worth diving a small force into that expansion to kill a few workers, losing the force in the process? Is it worth standing and fighting to the death to inflict a few losses, or better to retreat and save many of your units? How much is one unit worth to you or your opponent at this particular stage of the game. This can include deciding how and when to use an ability.

Mechanics
How quickly, effectively and precisely you can control the game. This includes quickly using abilities, managing your base and looking around. Every action involves some aspect of mechanics, but actions do not necessarily test other skills. For example, if an ability should always be cast at a particular point in a fight, and in a particular way, then casting it is not a test of valuation. The real time aspect of RTS creates an interplay of mechanics and valuation as you must decide where to direct your attention.

Balancing
Your ability to keep an unstable system chugging along smoothly so as to more effectively produce something of worth. The system is usually destabilised by enemy prodding or your own attempts to grow it, with the most common example being your economy. This involves continually monitoring the system, doing the actions required to keep it from breaking, and expanding it (if it can be expanded) without breaking it in the process.

Logistics
Essentially the valuation of distance, time and position, rather than valuation of resources and assets. Does the game reward you for getting your units into good positions and denying those positions to your opponent? How much opportunity is there for this? How complex are the potential interactions with the terrain? How easy is it to control terrain? A game that encourages the use of a single army will probably have easier logistics puzzles than one that encourages using two or more armies.

Repertoire
Do you like to perfectly execute a set strategy or do you like to mix it up each game? How much does a game reward or try to prevent build orders? Once you pick a strategy do you continue to execute it past the point of not working, or quickly realise this and switch into something better? Does the game even require switches, or will one strategy (with a few branches) see you through the entire game? This includes aspects from switching the unit types you are producing in response to the situation, to changing your goals and approaches on the map.

Knowledge
Do you need to know a lot to play the game? This looks a bit like repertoire, but is more focused on the passive aspect of knowing how a game works. As per usual, this aspect is related to everything else. You need to be aware of a niche tactic to use clairvoyance on it, you will need to know how combat works to be good at valuation, and you need an awareness of what can be done to have a repertoire. Knowledge can be emphasised by having many unique and relevant mechanics, interactions and units.

Consistency
Playing well over an entire game is hard. How brutally does the game punish sloppy play, bad choices or sapped creativity? Do you simply lose if you misclick or make the wrong decision at a pivotal moment. Particularly punishing games can be won by simply waiting for your opponent to make a mistake. How long is the game and how predictable are the moments of action? Do you have to be ready for anything at any moment or do you have some control over when the action ramps up?

Maybe to these skills I would add:

Vision
Seeing what's going on in all parts of the map. Noticing immediately when your opponent attacks or comes into vision anywhere and taking in his unit composition at a glance.

Multitasking
Juggling multiple groups of units in different places around the map without forgetting about them. Raiding or scouting at the same time as you attack, not letting your workers be idle.

The following are less skills and more like a complimentary attitudes which massively impact how well games will go for you.

Grit / Adaptability
The ability to persevere and turn things around through use of your other strengths when your cards are down. Too often I see players lose morale after an initial problem and throw in the towel too quick. The top players know that even a single ember can burn into a large fire if given fuel (enemy metal donated during their unfinished attack). It might look bad, but it the spoils of it all happened in your territory. It's that willpower to push when you know that there is a chance.

Confidence/certainty
If you raid like a Mongol against lower-ranked players but cower in your base against higher ranked players, then this self-perpetuating issue is a challenge you could overcome. You cannot be submissive to a formidable opponent without giving them an advantage. And the result of their advantage can cause you to become even more fearful of their skill, causing you to blow it out of proportion and sabotage yourself. By ignoring your opponents reputation and acting consistently no matter the matchup, you will have more stable results.

quote: Sun Tzu taught that success in human society is not a matter of winning battles with others. He said that a general who fights a hundred battles and wins a hundred battles is not a great general. A great general is one who finds a winning position without fighting a single battle.

People being scared of playing me just makes me a good general Dregs. :P

quote: Confidence/certainty If you raid like a Mongol against lower-ranked players but cower in your base against higher ranked players, then this self-perpetuating issue is a challenge you could overcome. You cannot be submissive to a formidable opponent without giving them an advantage. And the result of their advantage can cause you to become even more fearful of their skill, causing you to blow it out of proportion and sabotage yourself. By ignoring your opponents reputation and acting consistently no matter the matchup, you will have more stable results.

I feel like the correct way to take this is to play the opponent as if you don't know who they are. You should scout against cheese even if the opponent is a noob, and you should mongolize against godde just like you would against a lobster.

(And you should cheese both somewhere between each fifth and each tenth game)

Vision/Multitasking/Context Switching seems like a good addition. Idk if they should be split or not. Map awareness and managing multiple battles feels distinct, but maybe viewing and managing are subtasks of switching your attention to different parts of the map.

In any case, ZK probably de-emphasises this skill to some extent simply by having strategic zoom and relatively little balancing requirement. That said, it is relatively common to be expanding, raiding with one army, and defending a raid with another army. Perhaps what happened is ZK dampened the more standard ways to reward context switching but then used the extra room to open up more fronts of attention in the game.

Dregs I'd say attitudes could sort of fit into skills as the idea is all about the types of things a game could require/reward. I intended Consistency to encompass most of Grit/Adaptability. If you're behind you can sometimes come back with sufficient tenacity and creativity, but it requires you to have kept your strength up and not to be drained of creativity.

Confidence/certainty is an attitude that I didn't quite mean to fit into clairvoyance, but is related. Since you bring it up there is probably a bluffing skill, whether it is Godde bluffing that he is better defended than he is or the ability to act normally while a Krow is being built.

I feel that these skills are strongly dependent. Repertoire, Knowledge, Consistency and a bit of Balance are the building blocks needed to even make use of the other skills. Your first point, Clairvoyance, really only applies to matches between players that have mastered most of the other skills. It's impossible to read the minute differences in playing if a player is inconsistent, struggles with economy, doesn't know how to position their units or can't properly value their engagements. So I don't think this is a skill that gives you any advantage as a casual player/in the majority of 1v1s.

Cloaking is probably the one part where that skill really shines, since when you have been playing an opponent a few times, this will allow you to recognize a lack of 500+ metal and prepare the counters. Which could be a Skuttle or a squad of Scythes coming for your base.

I do kinda feel like the "Grit" idea is basically an "isn't depressed" skill, which isn't much of a skill so much as a question of quality of therapy and medication. I do agree that it kinda fits better with Consistency, and maybe Repertoire (since you'd have ideas for how to deal with situations pre-loaded in your head, so you wouldn't have to be working out strategies on the fly, meaning "Grit" matters less.

quote: I want to post examples of where other players rate high or low in these skills, but I would be sure to cause insult

I, for one, wouldn't mind.

Anarchid is pure clairvoyance.