Hello TeamLiquid! This post is about Blizzard and StarCraft II, about it's problems, and what we can do about it. I'm writing this in Blog, because I'm not sure where else could this belong, also I've got a feeling, that this would be closed very quickly as a thread. First of all, I would like to begin by introducing myself a bit: I've been playing BW for 6-7 years. I've always loved that game. At the time, I was playing many games, of many genres. I played a lot of FPS, RPGs, or other non RTS strategy games. But RTS remained my favorite. When WarCraft III came out, I started playing it, but I felt like this was more RPG (becuase of heroes) than it should be, so I stack with BW. At first I played a lot of UMS and fun maps, like Big Game Hunters, but a few years later I started to take it more seriously. I was still in BW e-Sport golden ages, but I was having fun. A lot of fun. Later, I switched to DotA, because of my brother and his friends, and also because BW was getting old. It was around 2007-8. And then StarCraft II came out. After finishing the campaign I decided that will try my best to accomplish whatever I can in this game. I've been practicing as much as I could (not so much, because gaming has always been secondary for me, so it was like 1-2 hours a day on average). Since the first season I've been in Master league, and always quite near to GM. I've never made it to GM, because I didn't play enough. My first surprise at StarCraft II was that, I achieved Master so easily, even though I was never that good at it. First I thought, it was because of BW experience. But months later, when I was following SC2 progaming, I realized that it wasn't for BW skills. No, it was because this game is too easy. No real micro units are available to us, nor position control like Lurkers, Reavers, Tanks (well despite Tanks, but they have been nerfed to death). Also, I must mention that I play Zerg, because I chose Zerg back in BW days, when I first saw them. I utterly fell in love with that race. On the other hand, in SC2 that race is incredibly boring. You secure 3 bases, macro up for 15 minutes, and then max out and a-move, whether you win or lose depends on one fight. About half year ago, you could actually see a lot of builds, which required some level of micro management and multitasking to pull off. But nowadays, it's just camping for 15 minutes, then proceed to a big maxed fight, where you can't see anything, everything just blows up, and you win or lose. It's became incredibly boring to play and to watch. Now I don't want to play this game at all. No micro is required, no multitasking, any scrub can destroy me who knows how to make 2 base immo sentry push. Whether I hold it or not, won't depend that much on skill. I think everyone knows the problems of SC2, beside, that's not even the purpose of this thread. Why I'm actually writing this, is because there is a big boom on TL about SC2's future. Every second post is about how fast and why will SC2 fail. Many people have spoken their minds, but Blizzard doesn't really care. Whoever believes that they care, is fooling himself. There are reasons why they don't care. First of all, Blizzard has become enormous capitalistic company which has bought many smaller gaming companies. Blizzard is like Microsoft, and they both are killing the gaming industry. Let's see how: Microsoft: X-box 360 came out around 2005. Since then, they have never upgraded their hardware. Never. Not a little bit. Programmers have been optimizing their games as best as they could, but since about 2008, every game has the same graphics. That's because they just can't pull more out of it. It's impossible. That's hardware of year 2003, not 2012, for god's sake. But why does this affect PC games? That's simple. Because the most developers want to make as much money as they can, but due to piracy and amount of people who play on PC, it's quite obvious that they will release games on X-box. But whenever they release on PC and X-box simultaneously, the graphics on both platforms is the same. I guess Microsoft doesn't let smaller companies to release games on X-box without ensuring that PC's version won't have better graphics. RTS was the genre that has suffered too much. You can't play RTS on consoles, so you can't have money from RTS. If you think about it, SC2 is the only recent RTS game. And here comes the Blizzard: I've played every Blizzard game since WarCraft I, and I love every one of those. Blizzard has made only exceptional products till WoW. I've never played WoW, because I'm not into MMO-s, but I've heard that after the original WoW, the next expansions were all trash. I don't know whether it's true or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. The original WoW has made so much money, that it changed the company and it's faith completely. Blizzard is no more a little company which produces games for hardcore gamers and for themselves to be proud of, but instead is a big capitalistic black hole which sucked many small companies, and which is the worst of all, they have no concurrent. No wonder that SC2 and Diablo III was crap. Becuase they don't care. They no longer make games for hardcore players, now they only care about money and make for 13-year old kids, who don't want to spend their time on micro, macro and whatever, they don't even know what that is. The problem is that these kids can switch to new CoD any day, and we can see this happening today. They all switch to other games, for example LoL. This caused chaos and crisis in SC2's world, which we are experiencing today. Every second post on TL is about this crisis. Here I will link few, which are the most popular: Destiny's post Slayer's disband Grubby's post
And my favorite is this one: StarCraft Crisis This guy tells my every thought, it's like I'm hearing myself. Definitely check it out, and his video!!
Also there are more reasons why this is happening, more core problems of SC2, for example these: Shitty UI No LAN
But the question is: what happens now? Well CatZ and few other progamers want to talk to Blizzard about the game, and how to make it better. That's a good idea, except that Blizzard will NEVER listen to them. They don't care. They really don't. If they didn't implement these simple things in 2 years and came with that piece of shit (HotS), then why would they listen now? They will say, you don't make games, so we don't care. So will 13-year old Blizzard fanboys.
Overall, the SC2 is dead. The older BW/W3 fans either switched to LoL, Dota or stack with SC2 because this is the only RTS game out there. We need another RTS. Fortunately PC platform is reviving. People began to make free-to-play games, like League of Legends, and there is great opportunity to get money for these projects, with the help of kickstarter.com. And it works. It really does work. The thing we need to achieve is to show young and enthusiastic programmers, who want to create good games, that we, the hardcore RTS gamers are still out there. Sure you can tell me to shut up and go play Dota, but no. I like Dota, I like many other game genres, but I can't see myself compete in other genre. RTS is everything for me. When you feel in control of your whole army. When you can outmicro your opponent, to make beautiful moves, which can shock others. When you know that everything you do will have effect on you and your opponent. I love RTS, and I'm sure as hell there are many people out there who love RTS as much as I do. We need RTS which would not repeat the same mistakes as SC2 and learn from best RTS games like BW or W3. There are older threads which describe the core problems of SC2, but nobody has cares until now. Now, when everyone knows, that this won't get any better. These threads describe these problems very well: EternalLegacy's first part Second post LaLush's post Abillities which kill micro And finally, I'd like to see what you guys think about it, and how many people actually want a new, fresh RTS, which could become the real e-Sport RTS game.
Poll: Would you like to see new RTS?
Hell yes (54)
72%
No, you're dumb, GTFO (13)
17%
Maybe, but SC2 could still be good... (8)
11%
75 total votes
Your vote: Would you like to see new RTS?
(Vote): Hell yes (Vote): No, you're dumb, GTFO (Vote): Maybe, but SC2 could still be good...
On October 22 2012 06:18 YaShock wrote: But the question is: what happens now? Well CatZ and few other progamers want to talk to Blizzard about the game, and how to make it better. That's a good idea, except that Blizzard will NEVER listen to them. They don't care. They really don't. If they didn't implement these simple things in 2 years and came with that piece of shit (HotS), then why would they listen now? They will say, you don't make games, so we don't care. So will 13-year old Blizzard fanboys.
Where the hell have you been the last few months?
The reworking of the Widow Mine was a community idea. Void Siphon was Grubby's idea. And more.
On October 22 2012 06:18 YaShock wrote: But the question is: what happens now? Well CatZ and few other progamers want to talk to Blizzard about the game, and how to make it better. That's a good idea, except that Blizzard will NEVER listen to them. They don't care. They really don't. If they didn't implement these simple things in 2 years and came with that piece of shit (HotS), then why would they listen now? They will say, you don't make games, so we don't care. So will 13-year old Blizzard fanboys.
On October 22 2012 06:31 Antylamon wrote: Oh, and LAN is not on SC2 because then it could be pirated incredibly easily.
The shitty UI is being reworked as we speak. Linky.
Yep I saw that, but it's still crappy, if isn't worse than it was. It doesn't really give anything we've been asking for, and they just acted impulsively, because they were in panic, and by this they can make people shut up, but they don't really implement any features.
Impulsively? It took way too little time. IMO they were working on it already. And on the UI still being shitty, you're a 1%. That's an understatement, too.
And you didn't respond to my edit on my first post here. -.-
Oh sry didn't see that. Well I don't think that people wanted THAT kind of mine. They imagined a mine like in BW, Vulture's mine, but instead they gave really shitty version. Void Siphon, I don't know about that, maybe.
Okay you may be right, but still doesn't change the fact that they didn't address units like Collosus, Infestor, Sentry, which clearly destroy micro, and boring units. Ye you can use burrowed Infestor, but give me a break, this isn't as much fun as Reaver drops.
Things I personally believe that are roots of SC2 problems and that Blizzard will likely NEVER change:
1. Warp-in 2. "Infinite" units binding to a single control group 3. Macro mechanics 4. Force fields, fungal growth and concussive shells 5. The colossus (I mean, it's been 2 years and this unit is still in the game? Probably will remain there forever) 6. Players can max out way too fast 7. No real high ground advantage (their bullshit excuse is "to avoid randomness in the game") 8. The lead designer has no idea what the hell he is doing, as proven when he thought that by mech play we just meant robot marines 9. Individually microing units during big battles doesn't give any signficant advantage because everything happens way too fast to do so
Could SC2 still be good? Definitely. The programmers did an excellent job, you can customize a lot to make the gameplay as you wish.
Will SC2 be good? Probably not because the lead designer is clearly clueless. Make no mistake, his job is really hard and I doubt I would make things better in his place, but that doesn't mean he is excused.
Would I like to see a new RTS like BW? Oh fucking yeah, but seriously which company will want to take a big risk when it is so much safer to create MMO's and FPS's? Nowadays everything is about making fast money, I would guess only indie companies are making games based solely in passion.
On October 22 2012 06:54 fabiano wrote: Things I personally believe that are roots of SC2 problems and that Blizzard will likely NEVER change:
1. Warp-in 2. "Infinite" units binding to a single control group 3. Macro mechanics 4. Force fields, fungal growth and concussive shells 5. The colossus (I mean, it's been 2 years and this unit is still in the game? Probably will remain there forever) 6. Players can max out way too fast 7. No real high ground advantage (their bullshit excuse is "to avoid randomness in the game") 8. The lead designer has no idea what the hell he is doing, as proven when he thought that by mech play we just meant robot marines 9. Individually microing units during big battles doesn't give any signficant advantage because everything happens way too fast to do so
Could SC2 still be good? Definitely. The programmers did an excellent job, you can customize a lot to make the gameplay as you wish.
Will SC2 be good? Probably not because the lead designer is clearly clueless. Make no mistake, his job is really hard and I doubt I would make things better in his place, but that doesn't mean he is excused.
Would I like to see a new RTS like BW? Oh fucking yeah, but seriously which company will want to take a big risk when it is so much safer to create MMO's and FPS's? Nowadays everything is about making fast money, I would guess only indie companies are making games based solely in passion.
We still can play BW, so let's do it!
Agreed with every point, but about risk of making new RTS: many people might be skeptic about kickstarter, but I saw it working. There is a chance.
I'd rather wait, personally. A good RTS game takes ages to make, especially when you're trying to make it original as well. If we don't start moving in the right direction once HotS comes out, I'll start preparing to jump ship. Then, if LotV doesn't make headway during beta, it's time to leave Blizzard for some hotshot indie company and their new competitive RTS. I find it hard to believe that a company, upon seeing that the only good RTS is dying, will not try to make their own RTS to fill the hole in the market.
o.o that eternity game looks like it will be pretty sweet. Even though those games are aiming for "awesome" are they worth the 5$ or whatever they're listed for?
I would definitely love to see a new RTS on the scene. A 2-D game with super nice sleek graphics. Maybe with a different mindset and mechanics would be nice. RTS is great because it requires you to use both your keyboard and mouse at full length, mechanics are everything in RTS but strategy is always number 1.
On October 22 2012 07:09 DigiGnar wrote: Did a ctrl + f for planetary and for annihilation.
If you don't know about Total Annihilation, get it. Five bucks from gog, or free for torrents! Then, look for Planetary Annihilation.
You should be relieved once you see P.A.. That game is going to be SO SEXY.
Wow I'm checking these out atm, so excited, thank you :D
don't get your hopes up, they're aiming for "awesome" not for competitive
I think the direct quote was that they were aiming for awesome rather than realistic.
I'm not sure there's any reason so far to suspect that it will be a really simple game. These people are the same ones who loved to play Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander (from watching the video). I'm sure they'll want to create a game just like that...if anything they're going further than Supreme Commander went. I expect it will be both awesome and amazingly challenging. Managing warfare on multiple planets? That dwarfs SC2. (Of course you don't have to play on such a scale, they also have smaller sized maps).
I'm hoping that the graphics improve a bit more as it looks somewhat cartoonish so far, but even so graphics don't determine how fun a game can be. Also amazing how they received $2,229,344 dollars for it. It doubled their request of $900,000 and then some...there's going to be *so much content*. Because of the overwhelming amount of money they received they added water worlds, gas giants, metal planets, galactic warfare...my hopes are very very high . Kickstarter is the future, there are so many great games and ideas coming down the pipes because of this amazing company.
On October 22 2012 07:09 DigiGnar wrote: Did a ctrl + f for planetary and for annihilation.
If you don't know about Total Annihilation, get it. Five bucks from gog, or free for torrents! Then, look for Planetary Annihilation.
You should be relieved once you see P.A.. That game is going to be SO SEXY.
Wow I'm checking these out atm, so excited, thank you :D
don't get your hopes up, they're aiming for "awesome" not for competitive
I think the direct quote was that they were aiming for awesome rather than realistic.
I'm not sure there's any reason so far to suspect that it will be a really simple game. These people are the same ones who loved to play Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander (from watching the video). I'm sure they'll want to create a game just like that...if anything they're going further than Supreme Commander went. I expect it will be both awesome and amazingly challenging. Managing warfare on multiple planets? That dwarfs SC2. (Of course you don't have to play on such a scale, they also have smaller sized maps).
I'm hoping that the graphics improve a bit more as it looks somewhat cartoonish so far, but even so graphics don't determine how fun a game can be. Also amazing how they received $2,229,344 dollars for it. It doubled their request of $900,000 and then some...there's going to be *so much content*. Because of the overwhelming amount of money they received they added water worlds, gas giants, metal planets, galactic warfare...my hopes are very very high . Kickstarter is the future, there are so many great games and ideas coming down the pipes because of this amazing company.
i'm optimistic about it as well, but i don't see it being a competitive replacement for BW. you're right about kickstarter though, if we're going to get an rts that'll compete with BW it'll have to be through kickstarter. it's a great medium for providing "art" instead of what the masses want!
The reason you are not getting a new RTS is because the average gamer like yourself has shown that you are not willing to learn anything complex enough to make the game both deep and balanced. You have shown this by disregarding and misunderstanding, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. The most difficult RTS games you play, SCBW and SC2 derive their complexity from micro. You, the average RTS gamer, are way too happy to replace your brain with your hands, and then pretend you have a big head.
On October 22 2012 15:37 BurnedRice wrote: The reason you are not getting a new RTS is because the average gamer like yourself has shown that you are not willing to learn anything complex enough to make the game both deep and balanced. You have shown this by disregarding and misunderstanding, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. The most difficult RTS games you play, SCBW and SC2 derive their complexity from micro. You, the average RTS gamer, are way too happy to replace your brain with your hands, and then pretend you have a big head.
You probably don't get it, but I had to try.
Okay, first of all I don't think you need to school me about competitive RTS, I have played a lot of BW and SC2. I was excited, before I actually saw what that game looks like, now I know that's not the kind of RTS I have been waiting for. If that kind of RTS was enough for me, I wouldn't speak about how small the skill cap for sc2, right? And I don't think I'm an average gamer.
the problem with making RTS games is that ~90% of the people that buy them are more interested in watching units attack each other than actually playing a game.
I'm a game designer and would love to start a kickstarter to make a new competitive hardcore RTS, I think it's the only way we can get a true BW-esque RTS that isn't messed up by publisher demands. A game by the fans for the fans (that is, fans of hardcore, competitive RTSs).
edit - I'm not saying that blizzard doesn't care about making a good competitive RTS that will please hardcore progaming fans, but they are making the game that they want to make. I don't think activision is forcing them to do anything they don't want to. It's just not the game that a lot of us BW-fans want to play. To win over the displeased RTS crowd blizzard needs to make major changes to entire game (essentially re-designing), something they are unwilling to do. Blizzard is determined to fix all of the problems (that is, the few problems that they acknowledge) with minor unit changes. Blizzard would never do something drastic (yet needed) like remove forcefield or warp-in because it would require the entire game to be re-balanced.
What's needed is a fresh start. a game with a low-budget (I'm thinking hi-res 2D graphics), community-driven development.
I've always blindly loved Blizzard becaue of SC1 and now I clearly hate blizzard because of SC2 (and a lil bit of D3 too lol). I never imagined that I would someday have to shift loyalty to a new rts game. The starcraft universe is so perfect and I'm so familiar with the units that it would be really different switching to a new RTS. Switching between LOL and Dota isn't huge because there is no story that we lover backing it all up. If there is a new RTS to be made that will replace BW it must be loved from the bottom up. But I don't know what can be cooler then space marines, an evolving alien race, and a a power beautiful energy alien race. Maybe a WC3 type game with out heroes. I can get into that I think. I would just miss siege tanks and zealots too much.
SC2 is a lost cause, there is no potential there. I don't care about LotV and 4 years of pushing the game's boundaries. The units are fucking boring, the engine is fucking trash. They would have to remake the entire damn game from scratch for me to have any hope.
Brood War is amazing, but it will never get big again because it's old and has big pixels.
Also, it is actually possible to make a game even better than Brood War. Brood War is the only game of its kind. A marriage between large scale management, economy management, strategy, like in other strategy games, real time or not, and control and micro like in fighting games, space shooters, side scrolling action games, and musical instruments like guitars and keyboards and drums. Even WarCraft III, which is based on micro, doesn't have the kind of volatile micro that StarCraft, fighting games, side scrolling games, and space shooters have. The spacial calculations. The thin line that you have to walk on with great balance. The split second prediction. The fast decision making. Even within a micro scenario, there is decision making. The infinite skill ceiling of just a PvP battle in which both sides have 12 dragoons, 2 reavers, and a shutte, is amazing.
And with that type of micro, comes the strategy surrounding it. A basic example is that you can do multiple simultaneous attacks. That way he won't be able to micro all of them. Or you can set something up that will require good micro to deal with. He might fail the challenge. But even if he doesn't, it will take apm away from other tasks.
It was the first, and to this day, only game like that. And it's fucking amazing. However, we CAN take what we learned from Brood War, and improve on it. We could make a new game that has everything that makes Brood War amazing, and MORE
It happened in fighting games, because there was competition, and new games coming out. Compare Street Fighter to Guilty Gear. Guilty Gear is clearly an evolution of fighting games. It took good things from fighting games that existed (From SNK and Capcom) and added to it.
So yes, I want a new RTS, if it actually improves upon Brood War. Otherwise, fuck that shit, I'm sticking with the best RTS ever made (For now, and possibly forever, considering the quality and quantity of RTS games coming out).
There's already this really great RTS game out there, it's called StarCraft: BroodWar. It even had a very robust competitive scene for awhile. Although it's a bit dated, it's worth checking out and there are still tons of people playing online!
StarCraft is like going to the mall - so many options, so little money.
Hahaha, what a great quote.
To me it's like going to a good café. Everything is so delicious! Which option shall I choose?! I'll just have to come back here again to try the other ones!
Edit: Actually, it's more like deciding what to cook, because it takes some work and practice to be able to pull it off. Second edit: Now I realize you were probably referring to apm and which actions to do. I meant which strategy to go for.
On October 25 2012 01:41 Ideas wrote: What's needed is a fresh start. a game with a low-budget (I'm thinking hi-res 2D graphics), community-driven development.
I think for start it's quite enough, the main point is to make good BW-esh game with good multiplayer strategies, and depth. I would support that project for sure
On October 25 2012 01:41 Ideas wrote: What's needed is a fresh start. a game with a low-budget (I'm thinking hi-res 2D graphics), community-driven development.
I'm quite certain hi-res 2D graphics could easily work. For one recently all sorts of game have popped up recently with retro graphics.
But more importantly, I'm not convinced hyper-realistic 3D graphics is inherently superior for competitive gaming for either players or spectators. I really think that a strong graphic style, probably even isometric is probably better simply in terms of clarity. If you can tie good aesthetics and clarity together, it's a winning combo no matter whether it's 3D or 2D or realistic or 'cartoony.'
At some point hyper-realism creates too much information imo and it makes it hard to focus on what's important versus what's just background. (A big problem with the graphics style 'jump' from AoE 2 to AoE 3 for me at least.) People often pull the wrong conclusions from success. Disney for instance saw the success of Pixar's animation and felt traditional animation was dead. Pixar's animation was newer and the way of the future. But Pixar doesn't believe that at all. They believe traditional animation is just as relevant now, you just need to do it well and tell a good story.
It needs to look good, but clarity is really, really important.
On October 22 2012 15:37 BurnedRice wrote: The reason you are not getting a new RTS is because the average gamer like yourself has shown that you are not willing to learn anything complex enough to make the game both deep and balanced. You have shown this by disregarding and misunderstanding, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. The most difficult RTS games you play, SCBW and SC2 derive their complexity from micro. You, the average RTS gamer, are way too happy to replace your brain with your hands, and then pretend you have a big head.
You probably don't get it, but I had to try.
1: I play SC2 because I like working with my hands and not my head`? What the fuck are you smoking? The mechanics in StarCraft 2 are ridicilously easy. I never won because I had better mechanics than my opponent. I always kept my money low. I always did what I had to do mechanically. I don't think I've ever beaten a good player in SC2 because of superior mechanics. Having said that, it's not strategically interesting either.
2: StarCraft: Brood War is extremely complex. STRATEGICALLY. It makes you think. Just because it also has mechanics and skill doesn't mean it doesn't have extremely deep strategy. If you had any understanding of Brood War, you would know that it has extremely deep strategy. I've played RTS games most of my life, and out of all of them, I have found Brood War to be the most strategically interesting and deep. I can just think about Brood War for hours. I think you're just a fucking scrub who either
1: Never gave the game a chance or 2: Tried to play it, got your ass handed to you because you were too slow, and decided that the game has less strategy than Supreme Commander, since you couldn't get past the mechanics and get to the strategy.
You also clearly don't understand that the requirement of apm adds strategy. Apm is a resource that you must spend wisely. And just like you can destroy workers to manipulate how an opponent can use his minerals, you can manipulate how someone can use his apm. Some things take more apm to deal with than to perform, like defiler drops. Therefor, an added bonus to defiler dropping is that it gives you an advantage in the resource of apm. You have to spend your apm wisely, since you have a limited amount of it.
I've played many RTS games. StarCraft is far from my first, but out of all the games I have played, StarCraft is by far the most strategically magnificent. That's why I play it. Good mechanics can be cool, but the main reason I like StarCraft is the strategy. And I've tried Supreme Commander. Mechanics aside, I still like StarCraft more. It's more intellectually stimulating.
The problems it makes you solve are more interesting. The multitude of ways that you can solve those problems in are more interesting. It allows for more creativity and self expression. One major reason for this is that the races are not only more different from each other, but also more interesting and complex, than the races in Supreme Commander.
On October 22 2012 15:37 BurnedRice wrote: The reason you are not getting a new RTS is because the average gamer like yourself has shown that you are not willing to learn anything complex enough to make the game both deep and balanced. You have shown this by disregarding and misunderstanding, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. The most difficult RTS games you play, SCBW and SC2 derive their complexity from micro. You, the average RTS gamer, are way too happy to replace your brain with your hands, and then pretend you have a big head.
You probably don't get it, but I had to try.
1: I play SC2 because I like working with my hands and not my head`? What the fuck are you smoking? The mechanics in StarCraft 2 are ridicilously easy. I never won because I had better mechanics than my opponent. I always kept my money low. I always did what I had to do mechanically. I don't think I've ever beaten a good player in SC2 because of superior mechanics. Having said that, it's not strategically interesting either.
2: StarCraft: Brood War is extremely complex. STRATEGICALLY. It makes you think. Just because it also has mechanics and skill doesn't mean it doesn't have extremely deep strategy. If you had any understanding of Brood War, you would know that it has extremely deep strategy. I've played RTS games most of my life, and out of all of them, I have found Brood War to be the most strategically interesting and deep. I can just think about Brood War for hours. I think you're just a fucking scrub who either
1: Never gave the game a chance or 2: Tried to play it, got your ass handed to you because you were too slow, and decided that the game has less strategy than Supreme Commander, since you couldn't get past the mechanics and get to the strategy.
You also clearly don't understand that the requirement of apm adds strategy. Apm is a resource that you must spend wisely. And just like you can destroy workers to manipulate how an opponent can use his minerals, you can manipulate how someone can use his apm. Some things take more apm to deal with than to perform, like defiler drops. Therefor, an added bonus to defiler dropping is that it gives you an advantage in the resource of apm. You have to spend your apm wisely, since you have a limited amount of it.
I've played many RTS games. StarCraft is far from my first, but out of all the games I have played, StarCraft is by far the most strategically magnificent. That's why I play it. Good mechanics can be cool, but the main reason I like StarCraft is the strategy. And I've tried Supreme Commander. Mechanics aside, I still like StarCraft more. It's more intellectually stimulating.
The problems it makes you solve are more interesting. The multitude of ways that you can solve those problems in are more interesting. It allows for more creativity and self expression. One major reason for this is that the races are not only more different from each other, but also more interesting and complex, than the races in Supreme Commander.
After playing BW for 10 years I still have no idea what is so deeply compelling about it strategically. It's pretty average IMO.
On October 22 2012 15:37 BurnedRice wrote: The reason you are not getting a new RTS is because the average gamer like yourself has shown that you are not willing to learn anything complex enough to make the game both deep and balanced. You have shown this by disregarding and misunderstanding, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. The most difficult RTS games you play, SCBW and SC2 derive their complexity from micro. You, the average RTS gamer, are way too happy to replace your brain with your hands, and then pretend you have a big head.
You probably don't get it, but I had to try.
1: I play SC2 because I like working with my hands and not my head`? What the fuck are you smoking? The mechanics in StarCraft 2 are ridicilously easy. I never won because I had better mechanics than my opponent. I always kept my money low. I always did what I had to do mechanically. I don't think I've ever beaten a good player in SC2 because of superior mechanics. Having said that, it's not strategically interesting either.
2: StarCraft: Brood War is extremely complex. STRATEGICALLY. It makes you think. Just because it also has mechanics and skill doesn't mean it doesn't have extremely deep strategy. If you had any understanding of Brood War, you would know that it has extremely deep strategy. I've played RTS games most of my life, and out of all of them, I have found Brood War to be the most strategically interesting and deep. I can just think about Brood War for hours. I think you're just a fucking scrub who either
1: Never gave the game a chance or 2: Tried to play it, got your ass handed to you because you were too slow, and decided that the game has less strategy than Supreme Commander, since you couldn't get past the mechanics and get to the strategy.
You also clearly don't understand that the requirement of apm adds strategy. Apm is a resource that you must spend wisely. And just like you can destroy workers to manipulate how an opponent can use his minerals, you can manipulate how someone can use his apm. Some things take more apm to deal with than to perform, like defiler drops. Therefor, an added bonus to defiler dropping is that it gives you an advantage in the resource of apm. You have to spend your apm wisely, since you have a limited amount of it.
I've played many RTS games. StarCraft is far from my first, but out of all the games I have played, StarCraft is by far the most strategically magnificent. That's why I play it. Good mechanics can be cool, but the main reason I like StarCraft is the strategy. And I've tried Supreme Commander. Mechanics aside, I still like StarCraft more. It's more intellectually stimulating.
The problems it makes you solve are more interesting. The multitude of ways that you can solve those problems in are more interesting. It allows for more creativity and self expression. One major reason for this is that the races are not only more different from each other, but also more interesting and complex, than the races in Supreme Commander.
After playing BW for 10 years I still have no idea what is so deeply compelling about it strategically. It's pretty average IMO.
Then you weren't playing it right, which, to be fair, was the case for most people playing BW. However, surely you must have appreciated how deep and nuanced the strategies being deployed in the pro-scene were.
On October 22 2012 15:37 BurnedRice wrote: The reason you are not getting a new RTS is because the average gamer like yourself has shown that you are not willing to learn anything complex enough to make the game both deep and balanced. You have shown this by disregarding and misunderstanding, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. The most difficult RTS games you play, SCBW and SC2 derive their complexity from micro. You, the average RTS gamer, are way too happy to replace your brain with your hands, and then pretend you have a big head.
You probably don't get it, but I had to try.
1: I play SC2 because I like working with my hands and not my head`? What the fuck are you smoking? The mechanics in StarCraft 2 are ridicilously easy. I never won because I had better mechanics than my opponent. I always kept my money low. I always did what I had to do mechanically. I don't think I've ever beaten a good player in SC2 because of superior mechanics. Having said that, it's not strategically interesting either.
2: StarCraft: Brood War is extremely complex. STRATEGICALLY. It makes you think. Just because it also has mechanics and skill doesn't mean it doesn't have extremely deep strategy. If you had any understanding of Brood War, you would know that it has extremely deep strategy. I've played RTS games most of my life, and out of all of them, I have found Brood War to be the most strategically interesting and deep. I can just think about Brood War for hours. I think you're just a fucking scrub who either
1: Never gave the game a chance or 2: Tried to play it, got your ass handed to you because you were too slow, and decided that the game has less strategy than Supreme Commander, since you couldn't get past the mechanics and get to the strategy.
You also clearly don't understand that the requirement of apm adds strategy. Apm is a resource that you must spend wisely. And just like you can destroy workers to manipulate how an opponent can use his minerals, you can manipulate how someone can use his apm. Some things take more apm to deal with than to perform, like defiler drops. Therefor, an added bonus to defiler dropping is that it gives you an advantage in the resource of apm. You have to spend your apm wisely, since you have a limited amount of it.
I've played many RTS games. StarCraft is far from my first, but out of all the games I have played, StarCraft is by far the most strategically magnificent. That's why I play it. Good mechanics can be cool, but the main reason I like StarCraft is the strategy. And I've tried Supreme Commander. Mechanics aside, I still like StarCraft more. It's more intellectually stimulating.
The problems it makes you solve are more interesting. The multitude of ways that you can solve those problems in are more interesting. It allows for more creativity and self expression. One major reason for this is that the races are not only more different from each other, but also more interesting and complex, than the races in Supreme Commander.
After playing BW for 10 years I still have no idea what is so deeply compelling about it strategically. It's pretty average IMO.
Then you weren't playing it right, which, to be fair, was the case for most people playing BW. However, surely you must have appreciated how deep and nuanced the strategies being deployed in the pro-scene were.
Yes I did. Korean BW was awesome and I miss it. However, I think you're confusing 15 years of meta game development with complexity of the game. Chess is a simple game, but hundreds of years of meta game developments have made it incredibly complex. It's hard for any other rts to even compete with BW because it had people working half the day every day for years to perfect it.
Personally I like rts of grand scale like supreme commander a lot but they aren't spectator friendly like Sc is.
I don't know about SupCom 1, but for SupCom2 there is frankly not much to do with your army. The complexity of the strategies in BW are contingent on all the different tactical skills you could master for small groups of units.
Altogether these created a great arsenal of options for your overall strategy of not just where and with what to attack, but HOW to attack. It's more than just 15 years of meta-game. There are more strategic options on the table because of how well, how precise and fast the units could be handled.
The unit handling in SupCom2 is nothing if not frustrating (long arc turn-around for air units, 'smart-ai' that is reluctant to obey manual target fire orders or immediate withdrawals without firing off a few last shots, very sluggish handling for any sort of attack-retreat micro etc, etc.)
On October 26 2012 02:22 Falling wrote: I don't know about SupCom 1, but for SupCom2 there is frankly not much to do with your army. The complexity of the strategies in BW are contingent on all the different tactical skills you could master for small groups of units.
Altogether these created a great arsenal of options for your overall strategy of not just where and with what to attack, but HOW to attack. It's more than just 15 years of meta-game. There are more strategic options on the table because of how well, how precise and fast the units could be handled.
The unit handling in SupCom2 is nothing if not frustrating (long arc turn-around for air units, 'smart-ai' that is reluctant to obey manual target fire orders or immediate withdrawals without firing off a few last shots, very sluggish handling for any sort of attack-retreat micro etc, etc.)
Every time I play SupCom 2 I honestly and truly feel the pain of BW "elitists"
When someone says Supreme Commander Forged Alliance, it is implied that they think supcom 2 is garbage. Please don't talk about that game in the same thread with Supcom FA. If you are a fan on RTS and you haven't tried Supcom FA on a competitive level then you haven't played RTS. I want you to show me one player who got good at Supcom FA who would say that there is any RTS that is better.
TLO who got good at Supcom FA, SCBW and SC2, clearly said supcom FA is 10 times more complex than SC. He also said any idiot could learn SC but supcom FA takes weeks just to understand. He also said it is the only RTS out there, with SC being RTT in comparison. (TBO's twich channel, TLO interview)
I see people talking briefly and dismissively about Supreme Commander 1 & 2. This is fair to a point, SupCom 1 had a broken economy system that made turtling far too viable, and the less said about SupCom 2 the better.
However there is a third option: Forged Alliance. It was released as a (standalone) expansion to SupCom 1 so it probably passed a lot of people by, also when it came out the system requirements were insane. It rebalanced and improved upon SupCom 1 immeasurably, and it is the single best game I have ever played. It's focussed on large-scale rather than micro, so it might be a bit different to what you're used to with StarCraft, but it is a very varied game, very fast-paced and with a huge amount of depth.
There's a community-run client, lobby and matchmaking system that you can download free over at http://www.faforever.com. There is built-in support for leagues, several featured mods built in as standard, and there are regular tournaments for the more competitive among you!
The community has been growing at an ever-expanding rate recently due to the high quality and ease of use of the client, and new players are always welcome.
[/QUOTE] You also clearly don't understand that the requirement of apm adds strategy. Apm is a resource that you must spend wisely. And just like you can destroy workers to manipulate how an opponent can use his minerals, you can manipulate how someone can use his apm. Some things take more apm to deal with than to perform, like defiler drops. Therefor, an added bonus to defiler dropping is that it gives you an advantage in the resource of apm. You have to spend your apm wisely, since you have a limited amount of it.
I've played many RTS games. StarCraft is far from my first, but out of all the games I have played, StarCraft is by far the most strategically magnificent. That's why I play it. Good mechanics can be cool, but the main reason I like StarCraft is the strategy. And I've tried Supreme Commander. Mechanics aside, I still like StarCraft more. It's more intellectually stimulating.
The problems it makes you solve are more interesting. The multitude of ways that you can solve those problems in are more interesting. It allows for more creativity and self expression. One major reason for this is that the races are not only more different from each other, but also more interesting and complex, than the races in Supreme Commander.
[/QUOTE]
Supcom FA is very APM intensive, there really is no limit to how much apm you could make useful, because it gets so large so fast. To challange your belief that starcraft BW is by far the most strategically magnificent and presents the most interesting and complex problems I will let you watch the following video of a 1v1 supcom FA game.
To comeback to the main topic of this thread. Any attempt to make a new RTS, will be robbing itself if it disregards what has been achieved in Supcom FA, they way most RTS players disregard it, because they have been blinded by their love for SCBW.
Would be an awesome idea to make a game to be a true successor of bw by the teamliquid members! I'm pretty sure that the required talents to make the game are already registered to teamliquid, just lack of motivation. I would sign up for testing for sure..
On October 26 2012 17:29 nfteamDexy wrote: Would be an awesome idea to make a game to be a true successor of bw by the teamliquid members! I'm pretty sure that the required talents to make the game are already registered to teamliquid, just lack of motivation. I would sign up for testing for sure..
Glad to see that there is somebody who agrees with me, from my country. 99% of our people are shouting at me for being "ignorant" because I "can't see" that sc2 is skilled, and I'm just frustrating, writing non-sense. We all should to try to make game designers pay attention to real RTS, because IMO it's the most beautiful concept for competitive gaming.
I would slaughter 1000 people just to see a new Age of Empires game. Something going back to the roots of AoE I or II. Such a shame that Ensemble Studios broke up, I was always secretly hoping.
Definitely, I hope there would be another RTS game out there that would get "big". I know AoE II had its' own competitive scene for a bit and I hope another RTS game could be developed that would rival SC2 in terms of production value/quality. (AoE 4 that would go back to the medieval times was pretty much the only thing that could make this happen I think. TT)
On October 22 2012 06:54 fabiano wrote: Things I personally believe that are roots of SC2 problems and that Blizzard will likely NEVER change:
1. Warp-in 2. "Infinite" units binding to a single control group 3. Macro mechanics 4. Force fields, fungal growth and concussive shells 5. The colossus (I mean, it's been 2 years and this unit is still in the game? Probably will remain there forever) 6. Players can max out way too fast 7. No real high ground advantage (their bullshit excuse is "to avoid randomness in the game") 8. The lead designer has no idea what the hell he is doing, as proven when he thought that by mech play we just meant robot marines 9. Individually microing units during big battles doesn't give any signficant advantage because everything happens way too fast to do so
Could SC2 still be good? Definitely. The programmers did an excellent job, you can customize a lot to make the gameplay as you wish.
Will SC2 be good? Probably not because the lead designer is clearly clueless. Make no mistake, his job is really hard and I doubt I would make things better in his place, but that doesn't mean he is excused.
Would I like to see a new RTS like BW? Oh fucking yeah, but seriously which company will want to take a big risk when it is so much safer to create MMO's and FPS's? Nowadays everything is about making fast money, I would guess only indie companies are making games based solely in passion.
We still can play BW, so let's do it!
I was really playing with idea of starting an open-source project for a new RTS. Owners only get paid if some organizations use it to make a tournament and get a profit. Otherwise its free and belongs to everyone. And anyone can change however he wants, but staple version is released from project owners.
And I kinda agree about lead designer. Seriously its seems DB don't understand how we see starcraft, instead he tries to propagate his C&C-like style of RTS. I was roflstomped when I learnt that he was the creator of C&C and Battle for middle earth. They are not terrible games, but they don't have anything in common with starcraft.
As far as good games go, there's already plenty. The classics from late 90's like BW, AoE2, TA and then some... Newer games surely too, I haven't checked each individual game out. You can play these to your hearts content, many still have enough playerbase. And new good games will come out inevitably, maybe for example Planetary Annihilation will be good or if not, something else down the road will be.
But if you want a bigger scene with progamers and all that jazz, you're out of luck. You won't get that just because people who love this type of game think something's good, you need big marketing money to support tournaments and such. It needs to be a wider phenomenon. Kickstarter for a game with mechanics pimped for competitive play won't get that, and even if such a thing was funded there's always risk of not delivering even on the gameplay side.
The most important figure in reviving the genre will be the player. Whatever games people's choose to play, that is the style of games that will be made. Vote with your feet, don't follow the herd if you don't want to be lead of a cliff by lunatics dreaming about money, esports, etc., but not dreaming about the game. Start by listening to TLO
I don't care about a competitive RTS scene, i just wish there would be a new RTS game with as fun a campaign and as entertaining custom games as WC3:ROC/TFT.
EPT
. Kickstarter is the future, there are so many great games and ideas coming down the pipes because of this amazing company.
