|
Hey all thought I would bring up a discussion. I am curious on what people would think would be the coolest RTS to watch, play, etc. This would involve what you would love to see in terms of gameplay, support, multiplayer, etc.
So for starters before I begin I would like to state do not say starcraft, yes starcraft is awesome I know but I want you guys to discuss something that isn't done.
for instance my dream RTS would be a variety of these things:
5 unique races/civilizations (if this is possible, would be insanely hard to balance obviously)
Constant support (patches, new maps, etc and not be charged DLC)
ELO type rating (I would like a rating that you have to actually work for and maybe resets either every few months like a season or only due to activity either would be awesome.)
Futuristic as I think these can bring the most creative ideas.
LAN (Do I really need to say?)
Lots of action for most of the game (IE no sitting for 20 minutes and rolling out with a huge deathball)
2-3 different types of resources (I think 2-3 is absolutely perfect in a competitive RTS game)
Good Anti-cheating (for instance a player hacks or whatever, instantly banned and not wait or just not do it. Constant support int his department).
Those are things I would love to see in an RTS as I think 5 unique races/civilizations would be a lot better and not as many mirror match ups, but of course that would make balancing and what not a lot harder.
Constant support with patches for balance and new maps consistently would be nice. I have never played an RTS (I am not counting ICCUP) where the developers officially added/replaced maps every few months. They might add one a couple times the first year but then they abandon it and it's the same old maps until you quit the game. I really would kill for a developer to do this, whether it be community made maps where there are more then enough to choose from or themselves. This is why I have gotten bored and quit RTS games like Company of heroes/Age of empires/etc.
ELO type rating I feel, feels more like an accomplishment when you get somewhere. To be honest types of games where I have played in these types is minimal. I just know that the biggest since of accomplishment came from ICCUP for me whenever you got that next rank. The reason being you couldn't just grind and eventually get that rank, you had to work for it and I really wish more RTS games would do this type of ranking. To date the only 2 RTS games I had this awesome since of achievement would be Broodwar on ICCUP and age of empires 3. Otherwise most other RTS games fail in this department imo.
I think futuristic is the best way to go for an RTS as you can come up with some cool ideas that won't be seen as weird or anything. Just feels like you can come up with more better ideas in a futuristic version then other types of RTS's.
I would kill for a game with lots of action. I can think of many RTS games that have done this and I would always want this to remain in an RTS. I would like the action to be near constant for most of the game with cool maneuvers, flanking, etc. I have played quiet a few that had this so this isn't really anything new, but this is a huge must.
2-3 different types of resources I like. 3 is really nice as it forces the player to really decide what he wants to do. For instance if anybody has played age of empires 3 you had 3 resources, food, wood, gold. If you wanted to do a heavy aggressive with early units you would gather only wood and food. This could be an all in or just a light pressure. To give a more specific example in aoe3 as the russians if you wanted to do strelot (Can't remember the name 270 food for 10 weak units), you would gather wood and food, mostly food but you would need wood for houses for population and to build a rax obviously to put pressure. I think 3 resources is better then 2, but 2 is good as well.
The Anti-cheating one is huge. I know a company that made the age of empires series (can't tell I love this series can you?) for age of empires 3 banned hackers a lot. There would be a database on the aoe3 community website (rts-sanctuary.com) and the Ensemble Studios developers would ban the players in there (obviously when there was proof). The community had a thread specifically for hackers, detective work would go and once confirmed they were added to the list. The list was then sent to ES and the players would be banned. This was awesome and sadly not many developers do this. In the 4 years I played aoe3 I can't remember hacking ever being a big problem, hell I am pretty sure I never faced a hacker as they were banned pretty fast.
Once I think of some more I will edit my thoughts, now for you guys!
 
|
Hmmm..I've got an idea.
3 races.
2 resources.
Constant support and patches.
LAN.
All the features that SCII has been missing.
BW based economic system.
Innovative units that are simple yet allow for a wide variety of tactics.
---
Ok for serious. I thought about this a lot.
I would just like Blizzard to do what ID or Bungie has done and remake BW with modern graphics and engine. Ahem.
---
Now for a different style of game, I always loved Age of Mythology and wondered what that game would be like if they updated it today to have twitch control and proper hotkey setup/the works. It's really fun to play anyhow. Same goes for Age of Empires II.
|
I just want masses of people to play brood war. I already have a perfect RTS.
|
I'm pretty much expecting a ratio of 90% BW, 10% other.
I think having 4 or 5 races and 3 types of resources would be really interesting, if they could make the game balanced and dynamic around all of those options.
|
Perfect balance, high variety (in gameplay and strategy), freeware (or at least freelicense for broadcasters), regularly updated/added tilesets, high skill ceiling, 2D isomentric viewpoint (3d RTS has never been that appealing to me), sprite based, able to run on even old machines (not like 1995, but if you bought a computer in 2002 you shouldn't need a new one for this game, maybe could compromise for like 2005, 2008, but it's too limiting to ask people to have a computer within 4 years old), easy to start playing, fun from the beginning, lots to learn but in such a way that is not simply route memorization, but critical thinking of how to use what you already know. Environmental effects, maybe (might be hard to do this in a way that will run on any machine), LAN, good ladder support, good anti-cheater support, IP holders aren't dickheads to their users, etce etecetecetecetec. Maybe do ELO instead of ladder, or some other nice system where the number is more accurate.
Other important peripheral aspects of the game: well founded pro scene, high interest in the game among skilled people, interest from corporations to support this scene (or at least some form of financial support), crazy cool finals with excellent production values, excellent production values on regular season, tho maybe not stadium filling? (I'm not sure how much I'd like that) international popularity and success, male and female and other gendered players, from all races. A game which transcends perceptions of intellectual differences between these types of people, and brings the world together and makes us all more intellectually inclined because of it  In other words, a smart game for smart people that makes everyone want to be smart.
I think 3 is a good number of in-game races. I don't want the game to be about memorization, and more races complicates things in a dumb way. The learning curve should be based on figuring out what to do with what you have, not knowing everything there is to have. It's hard to say what the right level of complexity is, but if complexity needed to be furthered as the game developed, I'd rather it be done via maps that introduce new challenges and strategies, than by adding new units or races.
|
On November 02 2012 09:32 Probe1 wrote:
I just want masses of people to play brood war. I already have a perfect RTS.
It's an amazing game but not perfect :D.
On November 02 2012 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm pretty much expecting a ratio of 90% BW, 10% other.
I think having 4 or 5 races and 3 types of resources would be really interesting, if they could make the game balanced and dynamic around all of those options.
Yeah I know people already saying BW when I already said not to say starcraft xD, not to surprised though. But I feel if the developers would make sure to constantly support the game 5 races with 3 resource types would be amazing.
Oh chef good list, I am going to add your Anti cheating I forgot about that critically important factor LOL.
|
A worthy sequel in the Command and Conquer franchise.
The fact that one doesn't exist is pretty much why I'm here in the first place.
|
Ah but it is perfect for me It can be both hyper competitive and casual. I guess what I'm trying to say is you can have whatever qualities you want, my idea of perfection is a strong community behind it. Everyone wants Blizzard to make SC2 do this and that but I'm happy with the imperfect reality of brood war and the fantastic people that play it with me.
|
My perfect RTS would have all the basic necessities (LAN, around 3 races, balanced well, etc.) and be a largely micro-based game. Macro would definitely be important, but it wouldn't be the centerpiece and would demand around ~100apm, with very little need to actually look at your base to macro if you're skilled enough. Micro would be the most important part. Innovative and unique units would would make the micro entertaining to use and watch. The AI and UI would make it so the game would do exactly what you tell it to do, no more, no less.
The micro/macro apm ceiling would be at about 1000 or so apm. After that, rewards for spending your actions per action would drop sharply. What this would mean is that apm growth would correspond fairly linearly with increases in skill and odds for winning the game.
Of course, tactics when microing your army would also be fairly important. A deficit of 100 apm could be compensated for by superior tactics. A deficit of 200 apm would require you to out think your opponent repeatedly and convincingly. A deficit of 300 apm would mean that you had better be a genius if you want to win.
Also, aggression and multitasking must be rewarded. As nice as it is being having an unbreakable shield, I'd rather be somewhat like this:
+ Show Spoiler +
Aggressive.
Elegant.
I want to march right up to my foe's face and attack him from every angle at every second, until his hands start shaking from exhaustion and the cracks in his defense begin to split into fissures, until it all falls down around him.
That's the kind of RTS I want. Where you can do that.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
hhhmmmmm, while I'm sure that most people would say BW, in terms of gameplay I probably wouldn't go for that.
3 races is right to me, and its emphasis on battles across the map is very cool, but I don't think for my ideal RTS it would have that economic management system, both in terms of BW's high mechanical requirement, and even in the way it fundamentally works.
I'd probably go for something weird, like a combination classic RTS expansion based gameplay (like SC2 and BW) with SC2's macro mechanics (the ability to bank up a resource like MULEs, Larva or Chrono) and something really nuts like Halo's (yes, the shooting game) weapon spawns across the map (though in this case it would probably be resources, not weapons)
One thing that would be super important now that I've played Starcraft would reactive units, I could never go back to Battle for Middle Earth slow turning units, it would have to have that level of control inherent in the engine, quite apart from all the interesting and dynamic micro mechanics I would obviously like built in.
Oh, and a massive splash of Age of mythology chucked in there as well. that game was the shiiit
And some heros, of course, I want some levelling up shit. And the ability to make individual units carry items of some kind.
So basically SC2, BW, WC3 and AoM all smashed together, with stuff to contest and capture in the middle of the map, at certain timings.
|
3 Races
Why 3? Well simply because its practical, and imo, when you get past 3, units start to stop being asymmetric. In other words, after you go past 3 races, some units you make can't help but start to be carbon copies of units in other races.
2 resources
Having one resource is almost like not having an economy at all. You simply have money, and you spend it. Having gas in starcraft increases complexity in a variety of ways: Not only do you have a secondary resource, but strategies depend on this second resource. You can restrict what unit compositions can be made at what stage of the game because gas is a limiting factor for many units. Gas is linked to the number of bases you have, you can change maps to have bases with/without geysers, and gas can be scouted, which gives hints at what strategy your opponent is going for/what is possible at certain timings.
No morale/cover/exteraneous resources, simply HP and Energy.
Less rules make it easier to play. Complexity can be achieved by a combination of several simple rules.
Spells follow "absolute" rules
No hard to memorise rules, like 48 damage over 6 seconds, or -50% armor for a set amount of time. More qualitative abilities/debuffs, such as slow (it's a slow, ppl who get slowed units have a clear idea of what is happening to their units) or cloak are allowed as long as they make sense and actually have a tested function/use. For example, the player who gets units slows actually goes "oh crap" because certain flanks/maneuvers that were previously impossible are now potential threats.
Damage spells have to kill a unit outright, or severely lower them to red health.
No random effects
Hit rate % would have to be either 100% or 0%. No chances to critical. No haywire missiles every 10 seconds.
High emphasis on map control
Each race has to have abilities to take map control. Map control simply isn't given through shiny towers, or picking up gems of true sight, or bought by some high tech research ability. Players should remain active throughout the entire duration of the match.
High emphasis on harassment
In the same vein, map control should be sought after simply because options for harassment should be large and varied.
Unit Versatility
However, we don't shoehorn our units into specific roles, like "Early game harassment based unit". Units should have a general role which can be used for several stages of the game.
No hard counters
GL trying to acheive all this though  .
On November 02 2012 09:36 Chef wrote:Perfect balance, high variety (in gameplay and strategy), freeware (or at least freelicense for broadcasters), regularly updated/added tilesets, high skill ceiling, 2D isomentric viewpoint (3d RTS has never been that appealing to me), sprite based, able to run on even old machines (not like 1995, but if you bought a computer in 2002 you shouldn't need a new one for this game, maybe could compromise for like 2005, 2008, but it's too limiting to ask people to have a computer within 4 years old), easy to start playing, fun from the beginning, lots to learn but in such a way that is not simply route memorization, but critical thinking of how to use what you already know. Environmental effects, maybe (might be hard to do this in a way that will run on any machine), LAN, good ladder support, good anti-cheater support, IP holders aren't dickheads to their users, etce etecetecetecetec. Maybe do ELO instead of ladder, or some other nice system where the number is more accurate. Other important peripheral aspects of the game: well founded pro scene, high interest in the game among skilled people, interest from corporations to support this scene (or at least some form of financial support), crazy cool finals with excellent production values, excellent production values on regular season, tho maybe not stadium filling? (I'm not sure how much I'd like that) international popularity and success, male and female and other gendered players, from all races. A game which transcends perceptions of intellectual differences between these types of people, and brings the world together and makes us all more intellectually inclined because of it In other words, a smart game for smart people that makes everyone want to be smart. I think 3 is a good number of in-game races. I don't want the game to be about memorization, and more races complicates things in a dumb way. The learning curve should be based on figuring out what to do with what you have, not knowing everything there is to have. It's hard to say what the right level of complexity is, but if complexity needed to be furthered as the game developed, I'd rather it be done via maps that introduce new challenges and strategies, than by adding new units or races.
I'm different. I want a game for dumb people that makes them want to play smarter/faster >.>
|
Ok you said not SC.
It's really really hard to find a good RTS game for me that isn't StarCraft.
One thing I've really been messing around with is what if WC3 and SC were merged and you had objectives like gold mines, a neutral faction that acted like creeps, and heroes and the like, along with all the things loved about starcraft and wc3 micro/macro.
I've always found objectives to be really important in making a game good to play, something like gold mines which are really easy to represent and have a clear value.
|
FPS + RTS combined! Oh wait... Natural selection 2 just came out!
|
A cross between Starcraft and Supreme Commander (original).
Mostly all I want from Starcraft is it's stellar asymmetric race balancing. Hasn't really been accomplished nearly as well in any other game.
Supreme Commander for a whole list of reasons:
* the huge scale of battles/maps
* multiple-theater warfare (land, air, navy, special weapons)
* air units aren't just floating ground units, they actually play and handle very different, more like real air does
* massive macro/multitasking requirements
* very demanding limited-storage resource system
* multiple-front battles and importance of harassment
* big differences between early and late game
* overall strategy and strategic concerns are much more important
* importance of map control
* spread out "control points" on the map, which makes overall map control very important, but not in an artificial way
* almost unlimited skill ceiling
* amazingly epic long games
* everything is physics based, so you only hit if the projectile actually hits them, which also makes dodging in small-scale battles very important
* how radar/stealth affect gameplay
* many possible decision paths: economy, map control, harassment, land production, naval production, air production, teching, commander upgrades, experimentals, etc.
* scouting/information is very important
* more spread out and less defined bases, importance of smaller forward outposts/fire bases
* with FAF it's all community-run, community members run the server lobby, make patches when needed, and design maps
* the only game I know to ever have dual-monitor support
I'm mixed on whether I liked SupCom's commander-based system. It adds a lot of interesting strategy elements, more decision paths, gets rid of most of the stupid early-game all-ins, and makes scouting SO much more important. But at the same time I sometimes think that sniping is a bit too powerful, and it sometimes punishes you too hard for micro mistakes with a single unit.
I'm also mixed on whether I like the veteran-system in SupCom. Again there are some disadvantages and advantages. It rewards you a lot for micro and keeping units alive, but it's also kind of unintuitive and just weird sometimes. It also has the interesting interaction with SupCom's bigger single units (experimentals and commanders) that I'm not sure whether I like or not. I'd probably lean towards taking it out, but in general it's not a vital part of the system.
The other problem is that, even though it's now a pretty old game, it still takes top-of-the-line hardware to run well when the unit count gets high. Especially in big 2v2/3v3/4v4/5v5 games. The lack of a population cap (except whatever you decide to set so that your computer doesn't melt) is both a blessing and a curse, especially when you get big 200+ plane air fights. In 1v1s this shouldn't be a big deal though, even for amateur players, so for a competitive scene it wouldn't be a big issue.
|
On November 02 2012 11:07 PiGStarcraft wrote:FPS + RTS combined! Oh wait... Natural selection 2 just came out!
haha that game is really fun :D.
|
Brood War is my dream RTS, I'd just add some small things to it. The only thing it needs is more people to enjoy it with. Being able to make a permanent channel without messing with 3rd party bots might be a cool feature I'd change, other than that most things are fine the way they are. I might also buff scout's building time, ensnare, and change some bug with the valkarie that keeps all my goliaths from firing when I have too many.
|
competitive rts:
yeah BW with new graphics :D
casual rts, where the main concern is fun and not balance:
I would love something like a mix of Civilization and Total War.
The city managing, resource, expansion and diplomacy aspects of Civ.
Played in real time with huge battles like in Age of Empires or the Total War series, where stuff like terrain, weather and morale are important and battles have lasting effects on the map, like corpses and armor lying around, forrest burning down from flame arrows, craters being created by bombs or exploding nuclear reactors making huge areas uninhabitable.
Maybe even add some natural catastrophies. Tsunamies destroying coastal towns, earthquakes damaging cities ( with later technology to know which areas are prone to those), volcanoes that give fertile land but might totally destroy cities and in extreme cases lead to volcanic winter with bad harvests across the whole map.
Also a crucial difference to all the advance-through-the-eras-rts would be that you cannot outright choose which technologies you will unlock. Instead it is influenced by your environment. If you have cities close to water you have a higher chance to discover fishing and sailing then some other player who might have more cities in mountainous areas and discover use of metals or someone close to horses might be the first to tame the horse and roll others with chariots.
If your civilization is advanced enough to have universities you can increase research in some areas, if you imagine a tech tree like in civ you can focus on an already existing tech which will increase the chance and speed that any of the further branches that depend on that tech might be discovered but you still cannot outright chose one to unlock and it will still depend on environment.
Lastly there would be trading between players, both in resources and in technology.
If you are allied you can teach your ally techs that your people unlocked, or you might decide to trade technology for other resources from someone neutral.
You could also learn technology from enemies if you sent spies to their cities and the spy manages to come back to one of your own cities it will take a little time until your civilization can master the new technology.
Same for battles, if you fight with wooden weapons versus someone with metal weapons but make it to one of your cities with a survivor he will bring with him knowledge of the newly encountered technology.
I think the game would be hugely imbalanced, maybe someone ends up like the Incas and someone else like Spain and rapes them hardcore with something conquistador-like plate armor and firearms vs hide armor and wooden weapons or someone gets badly owned by a natural disaster.
I think the game would be perfect to play with friends at a lan or over the internet, where if someone get totally owned by a huge volcano or something the rest can laugh at him but have the mercy to not outright kill him in an instant :D
|
I tried really hard to think of what my dream RTS would be but all the things I thought of basically kept going back to Brood War, with a smattering of SC2 elements mixed in. There's a reason the RTS genre is dead. Starcraft came out with the perfect mixture of strategy, action, depth and accessibility. That's not to say there can't be improvements but these would be building upon Starcraft's fundamental base rather than creating something new. There's nothing left to innovate because Blizzard already figured out the formula 14 years ago and everything else feels gimmicky by comparison.
The only non-Blizzard RTS I have genuinely enjoyed was the Total War series. If you stuck a gun to my head and told me to think of something besides Starcraft, it would be a Total War game. My favorite in the series was Rome: Total War so think that, but with smarter AI, a more transparent morale system, and the realism toned down a bit so that units respond to commands more directly. Also I would like to see the scope of the game expanded beyond Europe and include all the great civilizations and empires of old (i.e. Chinese dynasties, Islamic Caliphates, etc). Don't want too much emphasis on empire building like in the Civilization games though, this game should still be primarily a war game.
|
On November 02 2012 14:32 red4ce wrote:
I tried really hard to think of what my dream RTS would be but all the things I thought of basically kept going back to Brood War, with a smattering of SC2 elements mixed in. There's a reason the RTS genre is dead. Starcraft came out with the perfect mixture of strategy, action, depth and accessibility. That's not to say there can't be improvements but these would be building upon Starcraft's fundamental base rather than creating something new. There's nothing left to innovate because Blizzard already figured out the formula 14 years ago and everything else feels gimmicky by comparison.
The only non-Blizzard RTS I have genuinely enjoyed was the Total War series. If you stuck a gun to my head and told me to think of something besides Starcraft, it would be a Total War game. My favorite in the series was Rome: Total War so think that, but with smarter AI, a more transparent morale system, and the realism toned down a bit so that units respond to commands more directly. Also I would like to see the scope of the game expanded beyond Europe and include all the great civilizations and empires of old (i.e. Chinese dynasties, Islamic Caliphates, etc). Don't want too much emphasis on empire building like in the Civilization games though, this game should still be primarily a war game.
That's interesting that you say you haven't really enjoyed any other RTS's other then Rome. This is more curiousity then anything but did you ever play company of heroes or anything to that effect?
I also heavily disagree with you that the RTS genre is dead, there are plenty being made still today that are quiet popular, sc2 expansion, Company of heroes 2, new total war game that I forget the name of, civilization x number they are on now, etc.
|
There's an argument to be made that none of those games except CoH and SC2 are strictly speaking, RTS games.
Total War and Civilization are 4X turn based strategy games. Total War (The one coming out next year..ish funny enough is Rome 2) is a unique game because it combines Real Time Tactics with a 4X strategy game, giving you on paper the best of both worlds.
CoH counts as an RTS, sure. Some have called it a RTT genre game but I disagree. You have resource gathering, expansion, army building, positioning, soft and hard counters, unit limits. It has all the hallmarks of a RTS game.
Anyway I think you inadvertently described it best already. RTS games being made today are "quiet" popular games. They're loved by the fan base that loves RTS games but it isn't growing and has gone from one of the big archtypes of games to a niche in the market. What do we have out/coming up? Age of Empires Online, Starcraft 2 and CoH 2. All of which are sequels, building off preexisting fanbases.
|
I would like to be able to economically destroy my enemy, such as Iran is getting raped in the ass and face by sanctions. SimBank, anyone?
Combine this with political factors, deciding what economy your state will have, whether or not you were appointed or elected or fought for power. Something like the nationstates site. There's also influence, which could be taken from the Civ series.
Then you have the actual warfare. It should be simple, yet complex. No command centers or bunkers, as those are built elsewhere. (unless your attacked there, then it would serve as a map.) Just a battlefield that's generated from the main map. You would have reinforcements come in and would have to protect the transports, though the protection can happen on/off the battle map.
Simcity + Civ series + Total War battles = profit!
|
Basically Frozen Synapse's depth of commands and play-functionality merged with X-COM.
Dear God please ;_;
|
On November 02 2012 14:52 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 14:32 red4ce wrote:
I tried really hard to think of what my dream RTS would be but all the things I thought of basically kept going back to Brood War, with a smattering of SC2 elements mixed in. There's a reason the RTS genre is dead. Starcraft came out with the perfect mixture of strategy, action, depth and accessibility. That's not to say there can't be improvements but these would be building upon Starcraft's fundamental base rather than creating something new. There's nothing left to innovate because Blizzard already figured out the formula 14 years ago and everything else feels gimmicky by comparison.
The only non-Blizzard RTS I have genuinely enjoyed was the Total War series. If you stuck a gun to my head and told me to think of something besides Starcraft, it would be a Total War game. My favorite in the series was Rome: Total War so think that, but with smarter AI, a more transparent morale system, and the realism toned down a bit so that units respond to commands more directly. Also I would like to see the scope of the game expanded beyond Europe and include all the great civilizations and empires of old (i.e. Chinese dynasties, Islamic Caliphates, etc). Don't want too much emphasis on empire building like in the Civilization games though, this game should still be primarily a war game. That's interesting that you say you haven't really enjoyed any other RTS's other then Rome. This is more curiousity then anything but did you ever play company of heroes or anything to that effect? I also heavily disagree with you that the RTS genre is dead, there are plenty being made still today that are quiet popular, sc2 expansion, Company of heroes 2, new total war game that I forget the name of, civilization x number they are on now, etc.
I tried the CoH single player briefly but it did not interest me enough to buy the game. This may sound silly to you but I'm simply sick of WW2 games and will not get another one for a long time. If they made a game in a sci-fi setting with CoH mechanics I'd be willing to check it out. I'm ready for a thousand more battles against orcs or space aliens but if I ever have to storm Normandy again for the 162nd time...
As far as RTS being 'dead' what I meant was what probe1 said in his post. Whereas action/adventure/shooters/rpgs are still innovating, almost all of the new RTS games are simply a pretty skin and a few twists pasted over 15 year old gameplay. This isn't inherently a bad thing and I'm sure the loyal fans are pleased, but I think I can safely say that I won't enjoy <insert game here> 3 since I didn't insert <insert game here> 2.
|
On November 02 2012 15:55 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 14:52 blade55555 wrote:On November 02 2012 14:32 red4ce wrote:
I tried really hard to think of what my dream RTS would be but all the things I thought of basically kept going back to Brood War, with a smattering of SC2 elements mixed in. There's a reason the RTS genre is dead. Starcraft came out with the perfect mixture of strategy, action, depth and accessibility. That's not to say there can't be improvements but these would be building upon Starcraft's fundamental base rather than creating something new. There's nothing left to innovate because Blizzard already figured out the formula 14 years ago and everything else feels gimmicky by comparison.
The only non-Blizzard RTS I have genuinely enjoyed was the Total War series. If you stuck a gun to my head and told me to think of something besides Starcraft, it would be a Total War game. My favorite in the series was Rome: Total War so think that, but with smarter AI, a more transparent morale system, and the realism toned down a bit so that units respond to commands more directly. Also I would like to see the scope of the game expanded beyond Europe and include all the great civilizations and empires of old (i.e. Chinese dynasties, Islamic Caliphates, etc). Don't want too much emphasis on empire building like in the Civilization games though, this game should still be primarily a war game. That's interesting that you say you haven't really enjoyed any other RTS's other then Rome. This is more curiousity then anything but did you ever play company of heroes or anything to that effect? I also heavily disagree with you that the RTS genre is dead, there are plenty being made still today that are quiet popular, sc2 expansion, Company of heroes 2, new total war game that I forget the name of, civilization x number they are on now, etc. If they made a game in a sci-fi setting with CoH mechanics I'd be willing to check it out.
I've got some news for you...
http://www.dawnofwar2.com/us/home
|
I always thought that having multiple (asynchronous) races/factions is a design artifact of the past. Balancing issues aside, it forces the player to make an important choice before the game begins, acting on personal preference at best or reacting to balance issues at worst. In my eyes, it's always better for all the meaningful choices to happen during the game, with all players having access to the same features and tech tree to begin with.
Ideally, this means having only one "race", but it also means only one map - the map itself can still change somewhat regularly, but during the same period of time, everybody plays on the same one.
Also, all units should be designed in such a way that their effectiveness depends almost entirely on how much time a player commits to controlling it, and ultimately how good he is with that unit. Ideally, you will want different units to focus on all the different skills you can bring out in a player - some require more attention, some better mouse accuracy, some reward fast reactions, and so on. Shouldn't be more than 12-15 of them overall, if that.
On November 02 2012 15:55 red4ce wrote:
As far as RTS being 'dead' what I meant was what probe1 said in his post. Whereas action/adventure/shooters/rpgs are still innovating, almost all of the new RTS games are simply a pretty skin and a few twists pasted over 15 year old gameplay. This isn't inherently a bad thing and I'm sure the loyal fans are pleased, but I think I can safely say that I won't enjoy <insert game here> 3 since I didn't insert <insert game here> 2.
The reason why RTS genre is "dead" is because publishers still try to ship RTS games as $60 / AAA games, and that era is definitely at an end, which is why the companies are often proclaiming the genre to be "dead", whereas it's really only the big RTS titles/franchises that are being threatened.
RTS genre is much more suited for small, lean, and cheap (to make) games focusing on the core gameplay. I'm pretty sure the indie developers will take the genre over sooner or later, much like they have done with platformers recently.
|
The best RTS ever was made years ago, in like 2007!
The only reason Forged Alliance didn't take over the world is because it required more powerful PCs than people had at the time, a situation that has now changed. This game is the ultimate example of RTS with the way you constantly have to be refining and changing your strategies if you want to be better. People who have been playing it from release are still learning stuff, how much more scope for challenge can you possibly want?
If you're interested I'd check this out: www.faforever.com
|
On November 03 2012 03:20 DilliDalli wrote:The best RTS ever was made years ago, in like 2007! The only reason Forged Alliance didn't take over the world is because it required more powerful PCs than people had at the time, a situation that has now changed. This game is the ultimate example of RTS with the way you constantly have to be refining and changing your strategies if you want to be better. People who have been playing it from release are still learning stuff, how much more scope for challenge can you possibly want? If you're interested I'd check this out: www.faforever.com
Well that isn't the only game where players are still learning (BW the game people were still learning even 10 years into it, sc2 is the same way although only been 2 years so far).
I did enjoy supcom but I never found it fun to ever want to play competitively.
|
If you say "I did enjoy supcom but I never found it fun to ever want to play competitively"
then you haven't played the game.
Supcom FA can only be experienced in multiplayer battles where players are competent enough to make time the most important resource for the enemy. Supcom FA without pressure(AI sucks) is just sim city, it can hardly be called a strategy game.
Perhaps this is the reason a lot of people pass this game up. They beat the campaign, or play some skirmish but never touch multiplayer.
Like TLO said, "Someday they will make AI's that will play SC2 perfectly, they will never make a perfect AI for supcom FA,... you can utilize infinite APM..."
Impossible to teach a machine the fine detail necessary to make the types of decisions necessary for Supcom FA.
Comparing supcom FA to SC2 is insulting. Compare it to SCBW, if you want, that game was made by fans for fans and it was a work of art. Same with Supcom FA, all the latest balancing has been made by fans, and the game was designed by people who were fans and understood TA.
SC2 is made by publishers who want to make an esport, for those who are not blinded by hype see this clearly.
|
On November 03 2012 10:45 BurnedRice wrote:
If you say "I did enjoy supcom but I never found it fun to ever want to play competitively"
then you haven't played the game.
Supcom FA can only be experienced in multiplayer battles where players are competent enough to make time the most important resource for the enemy. Supcom FA without pressure(AI sucks) is just sim city, it can hardly be called a strategy game.
Perhaps this is the reason a lot of people pass this game up. They beat the campaign, or play some skirmish but never touch multiplayer.
Like TLO said, "Someday they will make AI's that will play SC2 perfectly, they will never make a perfect AI for supcom FA,... you can utilize infinite APM..."
Impossible to teach a machine the fine detail necessary to make the types of decisions necessary for Supcom FA.
Comparing supcom FA to SC2 is insulting. Compare it to SCBW, if you want, that game was made by fans for fans and it was a work of art. Same with Supcom FA, all the latest balancing has been made by fans, and the game was designed by people who were fans and understood TA.
SC2 is made by publishers who want to make an esport, for those who are not blinded by hype see this clearly.
I was just saying I found it fun to play but never would want to competitively. It's not my type of competitive game to want to play. Not saying it's a bad competitive game or anything just my thoughts on it are it's not my cup of tea.
I am personally a big fan of RTS games like starcraft/age of empires/company of heroes those types are games I like a lot ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
