|
On May 05 2016 14:10 GGzerG wrote:
I'm not sure if it is possible to make a better RTS than Broodwar bro.
WC3.
but I agree with the OP - its frustrating that every single RTS outside of Blizzard ones are not even worth spending $5 on. The new game by Day9 is interesting, and may fill that void for you if you like team games, but its not a 1v1 game. Unfortunately the genre of RTS has turned into Dota/LoL.. I wish there was a 1v1 version of those games (which is basically.. WC3) - infact if WC3 just had updated graphics and a new ladder system without hackers, it'd be the best thing. Same with a 3d BW with updated ladder/etc, as long as they could make all the mechanics the same.. Even just non-stretched UI BW with SC2's MMR/ladder system, and I'd go back to that too.
|
On May 07 2016 21:56 SnowfaLL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2016 14:10 GGzerG wrote:
I'm not sure if it is possible to make a better RTS than Broodwar bro. WC3. but I agree with the OP - its frustrating that every single RTS outside of Blizzard ones are not even worth spending $5 on. The new game by Day9 is interesting, and may fill that void for you if you like team games, but its not a 1v1 game. Unfortunately the genre of RTS has turned into Dota/LoL.. I wish there was a 1v1 version of those games (which is basically.. WC3) - infact if WC3 just had updated graphics and a new ladder system without hackers, it'd be the best thing. Same with a 3d BW with updated ladder/etc, as long as they could make all the mechanics the same.. Even just non-stretched UI BW with SC2's MMR/ladder system, and I'd go back to that too.
Well WC3 has unresponsive slow units + its not about controlling a large army, so doesn't really relate to OP. Day9's new game is also more comparable to WC3, so I don't put any faith in that game.
|
On May 07 2016 21:56 SnowfaLL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2016 14:10 GGzerG wrote:
I'm not sure if it is possible to make a better RTS than Broodwar bro. WC3. but I agree with the OP - its frustrating that every single RTS outside of Blizzard ones are not even worth spending $5 on. The new game by Day9 is interesting, and may fill that void for you if you like team games, but its not a 1v1 game. Unfortunately the genre of RTS has turned into Dota/LoL.. I wish there was a 1v1 version of those games (which is basically.. WC3) - infact if WC3 just had updated graphics and a new ladder system without hackers, it'd be the best thing. Same with a 3d BW with updated ladder/etc, as long as they could make all the mechanics the same.. Even just non-stretched UI BW with SC2's MMR/ladder system, and I'd go back to that too.
if you only play wc3 1vs1, youre missing out 
|
On May 07 2016 23:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 21:56 SnowfaLL wrote:On May 05 2016 14:10 GGzerG wrote:
I'm not sure if it is possible to make a better RTS than Broodwar bro. WC3. but I agree with the OP - its frustrating that every single RTS outside of Blizzard ones are not even worth spending $5 on. The new game by Day9 is interesting, and may fill that void for you if you like team games, but its not a 1v1 game. Unfortunately the genre of RTS has turned into Dota/LoL.. I wish there was a 1v1 version of those games (which is basically.. WC3) - infact if WC3 just had updated graphics and a new ladder system without hackers, it'd be the best thing. Same with a 3d BW with updated ladder/etc, as long as they could make all the mechanics the same.. Even just non-stretched UI BW with SC2's MMR/ladder system, and I'd go back to that too. Well WC3 has unresponsive slow units + its not about controlling a large army, so doesn't really relate to OP. Day9's new game is also more comparable to WC3, so I don't put any faith in that game.
slower units, maybe, but definitely not unresponsive. WC3 is all about micro, if you prefer playing a game thats more about macro and less about micro, sure BW is for you, but if you want intense micro, WC3 is the game to play. But of course, I know having the opinion of liking WC3 more than BW is not allowed on a forum like this.
|
On May 08 2016 05:41 SnowfaLL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 23:54 Hider wrote:On May 07 2016 21:56 SnowfaLL wrote:On May 05 2016 14:10 GGzerG wrote:
I'm not sure if it is possible to make a better RTS than Broodwar bro. WC3. but I agree with the OP - its frustrating that every single RTS outside of Blizzard ones are not even worth spending $5 on. The new game by Day9 is interesting, and may fill that void for you if you like team games, but its not a 1v1 game. Unfortunately the genre of RTS has turned into Dota/LoL.. I wish there was a 1v1 version of those games (which is basically.. WC3) - infact if WC3 just had updated graphics and a new ladder system without hackers, it'd be the best thing. Same with a 3d BW with updated ladder/etc, as long as they could make all the mechanics the same.. Even just non-stretched UI BW with SC2's MMR/ladder system, and I'd go back to that too. Well WC3 has unresponsive slow units + its not about controlling a large army, so doesn't really relate to OP. Day9's new game is also more comparable to WC3, so I don't put any faith in that game. slower units, maybe, but definitely not unresponsive. WC3 is all about micro, if you prefer playing a game thats more about macro and less about micro, sure BW is for you, but if you want intense micro, WC3 is the game to play. But of course, I know having the opinion of liking WC3 more than BW is not allowed on a forum like this.
IIRC The dota-concept of turn-rates came from WC3. But sure that doesn't prevent micro as long as the TTK (time to kill) ratio is high enouh. But personally I heavily prefer faster-paced (lower TTK) and very responsive units. There is nothing like controlling Marines and Medivacs in Sc2.
|
I've been having quite a lot of fun with AoE2 Lately. I'd recommend looking into it.
The macro and micro both have incredible intricacies and every click and action has significant importance.
Even in BW/SC2 there is a lot of 'fill' time with idle apm spam while you wait for whatever. In AoE2 There is always something that can be done (i.e Resource optimization and scouting [not making sure a villager is attacking the closest/best tree without causing pathing conflict could easily cost you the game at a certain level])
|
On May 09 2016 19:53 Agh wrote:
I've been having quite a lot of fun with AoE2 Lately. I'd recommend looking into it.
The macro and micro both have incredible intricacies and every click and action has significant importance.
Even in BW/SC2 there is a lot of 'fill' time with idle apm spam while you wait for whatever. In AoE2 There is always something that can be done (i.e Resource optimization and scouting [not making sure a villager is attacking the closest/best tree without causing pathing conflict could easily cost you the game at a certain level])
Maybe.. if fighting with spears, bows and swords could be considered fun. Tnx, but I would rather fight with cool explosions in modern/sci fi themed RTS.
|
There's nothing wrong with fighting with archaic units. I actually prefer that time setting.
|
On May 10 2016 00:08 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 19:53 Agh wrote:
I've been having quite a lot of fun with AoE2 Lately. I'd recommend looking into it.
The macro and micro both have incredible intricacies and every click and action has significant importance.
Even in BW/SC2 there is a lot of 'fill' time with idle apm spam while you wait for whatever. In AoE2 There is always something that can be done (i.e Resource optimization and scouting [not making sure a villager is attacking the closest/best tree without causing pathing conflict could easily cost you the game at a certain level]) Maybe.. if fighting with spears, bows and swords could be considered fun. Tnx, but I would rather fight with cool explosions in modern/sci fi themed RTS.
Actually is a lot of fun, but enjoy what you want.
|
You might look into Homeworld: Remastered and Deserts of Kharak. Slower and more strategic feel in each than SC2 -- and even BW, in my opinion. Homeworld Remastered is really neat in terms of its 3D space combat, and Deserts of Kharak has a lot of tactical tools.
|
4713 Posts
The success of the Soul Series proves that games which purposefully and masterfully embrace their identity of difficulty can still be wildly successful. I have never understood why no game designer was willing to ever embrace this concept for an RTS game. I can maybe understand the PoV of people believing that, to a certain extent, mechanics beat strategy, but when mechanics are equal than strategy rules again, and its always entertaining watching a less mechanically gifted (Mvp past his prime) outwit and defeat much stronger opponents.
I could maybe see more of an appeal in WC3, since that was more action and micro orientated, but there isn't a reason why SC and WC can't be two sides of the same coin, with Warcraft focused on the mechanical aspects of micro and hero control while Starcraft focuses on the mechanical aspects of army and base managements. I wish Blizzard could fully embrace this aspect and design units more with control in mind (like the marine) and less around concepts they feel are cool (like the colossus, roach, or cyclone).
And yes, I wish there was a strong competitor to Blizzard so they could stop resting on their asses, and so we could also get some damn innovation.
|
On May 15 2016 11:30 Destructicon wrote:
The success of the Soul Series proves that games which purposefully and masterfully embrace their identity of difficulty can still be wildly successful. I have never understood why no game designer was willing to ever embrace this concept for an RTS game. I can maybe understand the PoV of people believing that, to a certain extent, mechanics beat strategy, but when mechanics are equal than strategy rules again, and its always entertaining watching a less mechanically gifted (Mvp past his prime) outwit and defeat much stronger opponents.
I could maybe see more of an appeal in WC3, since that was more action and micro orientated, but there isn't a reason why SC and WC can't be two sides of the same coin, with Warcraft focused on the mechanical aspects of micro and hero control while Starcraft focuses on the mechanical aspects of army and base managements. I wish Blizzard could fully embrace this aspect and design units more with control in mind (like the marine) and less around concepts they feel are cool (like the colossus, roach, or cyclone).
And yes, I wish there was a strong competitor to Blizzard so they could stop resting on their asses, and so we could also get some damn innovation.
You confuse overall difficulty with mechanical difficulty.
Dark souls isn't hard to play mechanically at all, a few buttons and you are good to go.
A pvp game always has this "overall difficulty" aspect because in the days of matchmaking you will win 50% and lose 50%.
At the end of the day rts games are mechanically too demanding and i don't think making controlls easier is a real solution either because general "multitasking" aspect will always be there which make the genre mechanically harder than any other genre by default. (and if we remove that we don't really have a rts game anymore)
|
Starcraft spoiled me and makes me feel that every game should be as smooth and intuitively controlled. Anything short of that feels bad. It's turned me into something of a power gamer, sometimes has me completely neglecting the original reason why I'm playing a game, fun. I have mixed feelings about this.
Company of Heroes 2 seems like it could be a great game and don't really understand why it's clumped in the category it is. It's very responsive and has a decently high mechanical level. 250 apm on starcraft and I'm failing to keep up with CoH.Micro is more impactful in this game than starcraft, with grenades being able to completely take out a squad that would otherwise survive a firefight for 2 minutes. I love the goal of multiplayer in how it has you constantly fighting over territory which produce resources, it keeps the game from lulling into macro fests. I agree with what someone said a few pages back in that the genre should probably be called real time tactic. There's not much strategy in this game other than unit compositions. Base layout and expansion timings offer starcraft an interesting build order system. My biggest gripe with the game is the developers are hellbent on their lord and savior RNGesus ruling the playing field. This just makes it frustrating across the board to outmaneuver your opponent and lose both of your tanks because 3 shots bounced.
As for RTS as a whole? We need something with a much lower skill floor. Picture starcraft with bigger scope and on screen interfaces for your production. Not making your players hit 4sss5eeaaa6ss7dd every 40 seconds is a good start to making a game feel fun and not work. I would like to see something using the resource node system of starcraft with much bigger maps and a matching camera. Slow buildling but functional static defense, turtling can work but the player who expands without excessive defense gains a resource advantage. Trying to establish mid map static defense would shut off your opponent from the rest of the map and would be potentially game ending. This enforces the vision control and unit interaction that makes combat in starcraft dynamic.
Just some ideas there, but I would buy that game twice if it was designed with the same competitive focus that Starcraft has.
|
On May 15 2016 11:30 Destructicon wrote:
The success of the Soul Series proves that games which purposefully and masterfully embrace their identity of difficulty can still be wildly successful. I have never understood why no game designer was willing to ever embrace this concept for an RTS game. I can maybe understand the PoV of people believing that, to a certain extent, mechanics beat strategy, but when mechanics are equal than strategy rules again, and its always entertaining watching a less mechanically gifted (Mvp past his prime) outwit and defeat much stronger opponents.
I could maybe see more of an appeal in WC3, since that was more action and micro orientated, but there isn't a reason why SC and WC can't be two sides of the same coin, with Warcraft focused on the mechanical aspects of micro and hero control while Starcraft focuses on the mechanical aspects of army and base managements. I wish Blizzard could fully embrace this aspect and design units more with control in mind (like the marine) and less around concepts they feel are cool (like the colossus, roach, or cyclone).
And yes, I wish there was a strong competitor to Blizzard so they could stop resting on their asses, and so we could also get some damn innovation.
Actually, the identity of difficulty is mainly something that's used for marketing purposes. Once you get a grab of the mechanics and the rules Dark Souls is not all that hard, at least not the first two games which still allowed players to hide behind their shields.
Dark Souls is also decidedly not about APM. On the contrary, button mashing is the surest way to a quick death and being sent back to the latest bonfire. The difficulty in StarCraft is mainly artificial: give players an insane amount of things they have to babysit, and dial the game speed up to 11. Dark Souls, in comparison, is incredibly methodical and emphasises decision making and spacing, but does not artificially make the game more difficult by speeding it up. Quite on the contrary, Dark Souls (minus Dark Souls 3) is very slow-paced.
The sense of satisfaction I get after having beaten a boss in Dark Souls is completely different from having beaten another player in StarCraft 2, largely because in the lower leagues of SC2, beating someone is more about outmacroing someone rather than outthinking and outmanoeuvring someone (i.e. the larger army usually wins). Beating a boss in Dark Souls requires you to figure out when to block, when to attack, when to dodge and when to heal. You have to outsmart an A.I. opponent who can kill you in three hits by making the right decision time and again. APM has no bearing in how successful you'll be in defeating a boss.
|
Why the hell are we talking about Dark Souls inside a RTS thread? A game which bases its entire gameplay around trial and error of when to dodge and block. Shit level design too.
On May 10 2016 00:20 Incognoto wrote:
There's nothing wrong with fighting with archaic units. I actually prefer that time setting.
I would like to see a modern game with those aesthetics. No magic, just good old fashioned tactics and strategy.
|
This blog post touches on something I just ran in to. The short of it is that I found myself wanting to play an RTS, but all my friends are either gunshy of playing me in RTS games because 6+ years ago I played Starcraft competitively (I was bad in the grand scheme, C rated on ICCup). Or they say RTS games are too stressful; when they play a game they want it to be cathartic and not stressful at all.
I eventually convince one of them to play Age of Empires HD with me, because he grew up playing it and I have never played it. So I go into it blind, having literally never played the game before but with some explanations of how it works, and beat him. Two games of winning later, he gives up. Not because I was too good (I was terrible), but because RTS games are too hard for him now. After many years of League of Legends being his main game remembering to constantly build workers and balance his economy while also scouting and dealing with a military is just too much for him.
After having talked to a bunch of friends I swear modern games have totally ruined most people on mechanically hard games. They don't want to juggle their time between scouting, worker production, teching and microing whatever the AI is bad at. They want a slow paced strategy game with a ton of comeback mechanics built in so they won't lose if they screw up badly once or twice in a clutch situation. It is just... Frustrating for me.
|
After having talked to a bunch of friends I swear modern games have totally ruined most people on mechanically hard games. They don't want to juggle their time between scouting, worker production, teching and microing whatever the AI is bad at. They want a slow paced strategy game with a ton of comeback mechanics built in so they won't lose if they screw up badly once or twice in a clutch situation. It is just... Frustrating for me.
But MOBA's aren't slowpaced. They are easier and more forgiving, but not slowpaced. Heroes usually move and respond quickly + very focussed on the PvP engagements.
It's just all of the B-class RTS games that are slow-packed
|
On May 18 2016 10:12 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +After having talked to a bunch of friends I swear modern games have totally ruined most people on mechanically hard games. They don't want to juggle their time between scouting, worker production, teching and microing whatever the AI is bad at. They want a slow paced strategy game with a ton of comeback mechanics built in so they won't lose if they screw up badly once or twice in a clutch situation. It is just... Frustrating for me. But MOBA's aren't slowpaced. They are easier and more forgiving, but not slowpaced. Heroes usually move and respond quickly + very focussed on the PvP engagements. It's just all of the B-class RTS games that are slow-packed
It isn't that they want a slow game, really. But that they kind of need a slow RTS. They want to be able to play an RTS with the same amount of multi tasking and APM they use playing at a mid tier skill bracket in a moba. They don't want to have to keep track of many things; they want to be able to control their army without being punished for not simultaneously building their economy and scouting and teching.
For example, they like Sins of a Solar Empire because everything is slow enough that they don't need to be carefully watching. There are no workers to build, when they cap a planet they just queue up the resource asteroids and whenever they happen to remember to they might upgrade a planet. If they accidentally blunder into a bad fight they can turn around and jump out without automatically losing the game. If they don't notice they are in a fight, they have plenty of time to realize it and send reinforcements before the battle is decided. If they screw up their economy they can just trade resources to get what they need. If they are failed to macro, they can just use that money to send pirates at their enemy to give them some catch-up time. And above all losing/winning takes FOREVER.
Of course, doing all those things properly in Sins gives you an advantage. But in Sins there is rarely a single moment you can point to and say "I lost because ____." There is no accidentally moving your army too far forward and exploding on a bunch of siege tanks while you are macroing. There is no losing a ZvT because you looked away for a moment and stimmed marines exploded your muta ball. It is so much more forgiving that even if they lose every game, they feel better about it? I dunno, it is kinda hard to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
