|
On July 29 2017 06:14 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 04:29 Foxxan wrote:On July 29 2017 03:14 L_Master wrote:On July 28 2017 23:51 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:28 Ancestral wrote:On July 28 2017 23:11 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information. Wrong dude. As i said, the concept is old. You are thinking in old terms. I never stated how you scout for example. You are leaving out very many intells here and assuming BW is the way to go. What do you mean by the RTS "concept" is old? It's less old than fighting games or FPSs, which are still plenty active as far as development, casual play, and ESPORTS. The thinking in rts games are old, there are no modern thinking made in rts games. The old "concept" is: High buildtime without any interraction with your opponent. Meaning, you build supply, units, gets your economy bigger, can take litteral several minutes this alone. No real micro involved in this period, or real tough decisions or tactics. Big emphasize of hardcounters. Very outdated. Yes some old concepts can still be good but there are several that doesnt fit in a modern rts game. From curiosity, let's run with this. What would you see in a game if you were designing one. Obviously, the RTS genre itself is still enjoyed by many, so I don't think it quite makes the concept of RTS outdated...but what you seem to be suggesting is some fundamental to changes to how RTS plays. In your updated version of RTS, can you give some sort of conceptual idea of how game flow/unit interactions/etc would operate? That is a hard thing to do. Deponding on what kind of RTS design it is. Not sure i understand your question either? My word knowledge is rather bad. Yes i want to change how RTS games are played. Not sure how to describe it, without getting a headache. And i usually am vague with my explanations, if i was to try and really make people understand it would take a while. Not something i really wanna do. Still i dont quite understand what kind of answer you would have liked. You talk about how the RTS concept is old and designers don't understand the format. To me, this means that you have some ideas of what designers should do differently. I was just curious what your thoughts are. Right now, it feels sort of like if I was learning to play an instrument and you said "you're playing is bad", this may be true; but it's not very useful for understanding. You haven't said why it's bad/what should be better. Right now the only thing I know is "Foxxan thinks RTS design concept is old", but don't really have any idea what that means, or what could/should be different.
I understand what you mean now.
Hmm.
Make marines/marauders, move to protoss. Terran has big advantage now. Protoss makes zealots/sentries. Now protoss has adantage and terran cant fight. Terran moves home. Protoss move to terran natural. Terran gets stim. Protoss cant fight, needs to go home.
Another scenario
bio+medivacs vs zealots/stalkers/sentires.
Protoss has no chance, cant fight. Protoss adds colossus, now terran has no chance. Terran adds vikings. Terran has a chance now.
Terran does alot of hit and run in combat. Against storm, also splits. Protoss uses blink stalkers to snipe vikings and uses spells.
So what we have here in a conrete way is a cat and mouse type of gameplay. At the same time there is not much micro involved for protoss here.
The tactics in combat.. Are bland. Vikings shoot colossus, stalkers shoot vikings. Bio kite and do its insane damage.
This whole deathball vs deathball doesnt have much finesse or color.
Bad stuff: cat and mouse gameplay and one sided micro
I would change this drastically. For example, instead of viking hardcountering colossus, they should instead add some sort of tactic used in combat. Perhaps transform to the ground and get to the backfront of protoss armee. While being able to be microed as well.
This shouldnt work in sc2, but if we use our imagination how an rts could look like. My point is, units should add some sort of tactic to the race instead of having the "outdated" hardcounter formula. It aint interesting or fun.
So in sc2, you make a few stalkers move outside zerg natural and pokes a bit, then moves home. Protoss uses walls against zerglings and roaches.
Nothing Really Happens here. You play with yourself pretty much, in an rts game. Thats very wrong.
What could be happening then? Well first off, units shouldnt hardcounter each other especially so early in the game. The strengt of each armee and production needs to be more equal.
With that said, if protoss wants to poke outside zerg with stalkers? Then do it. When the zerglings gets speed? It shouldnt force protoss to be the mouse here. Protoss could stay.
Now here, there are so many possibilites to do here, even when its this early in the game. I mean designwise.
And not to be arrogant but i dont really want to talk about my personal ideas much.
The zerglings vs stalkers in this scenario should have micro value added. How? Many ways.
Just to try and give a picture of what i mean even though the example might not work in practice before beeing tested.
Zerglings slightly slower than stalkers with the speedupgrade. Instead they get the burrow ability from roaches.
Zerglings press burrow->Now you need to decide where you want to go or else you unburrow immediately. Where you decide to go, the enemy sees this and the zerglings pop up there, toss can dance around this.
No cooldown.
There are like one million ways of designing an rts game.
|
On July 29 2017 00:13 Ancestral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 00:11 KungKras wrote:On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information. I couldn't agree more with this. Much of the strategic diversity in BW comes from the early game and some of the most exciting moments can come from early game rushes. Only starting with four workers is part of the very soul of BW. LOL in WCII you just started with one worker and no command center even
Did that bring as much strategic diversity in the early game in WC2 as it did to BW?
|
What you call "cat and mouse" is simply powerspikes. If you have unique races with unique units they will be strong at different times of the game depending on what buildorder they use and the general strategy (economy, tech, army).
You can see the same concept even in the new rts genre: moba
About hardcounters: This is always a question of quality, at the end of the day when you compare certain units and unit compositions you will always be able to tell who should win in theory. The execution should be the x-factor here though, it has to be challenging to execute it "perfectly" and thus the human error is the deciding factor in the end and not if you have in theory the better army. So yes, there should never be the feeling of havign no chance simply because the army composition isn't 100% optimal, you should still get an advantage though because that's part of the strategy.
In general it seems to be that you want to add a lot of abilities and make it "micro focused" that way. You probably have to reduce the macro aspect of the game by quite a lot in this case, otherwise it won't feel fun. What do you think about the concept of macro in this future rts?
|
On July 29 2017 07:51 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 00:13 Ancestral wrote:On July 29 2017 00:11 KungKras wrote:On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information. I couldn't agree more with this. Much of the strategic diversity in BW comes from the early game and some of the most exciting moments can come from early game rushes. Only starting with four workers is part of the very soul of BW. LOL in WCII you just started with one worker and no command center even Did that bring as much strategic diversity in the early game in WC2 as it did to BW?
I'm pro-4 workers but WCII is just not a good competitive game. Ironically, though the races are almost identical, it is not balanced. The small differences were enough to make Orcs overwhelmingly better. It is also just simpler - no high ground, no cover, no damage types, etc.
As far as openings - the very early game is always identical, especially because you don't start with the command center type building, so first you build it. But it also only provides 1 supply, so you must immediately next build supply depot (farms) because you are still supply capped when the command center finishes. Then you start pumping workers no matter what (no one worker aggressive openings LOL). So in WCII, it DOESN'T add depth. But in BW, it does. Which just goes to show, it's not always "more is better" or "less is better." 4 is better than 1 and better than 12.
|
It all comes down to artistic qualities – an underrated aspect that BW got right and the SC2 devs screwed up with their soulless excel sheets and pre-conceived strategies.
Imagine a game of Starcraft as a story. No good story jumps straight to the dramaturgical climax. A good story needs exposition to set the mood and build suspense, without being overly circuitous.
So you can't just shove the numbers into an excel sheet like you're min-maxing a D&D character. You need to have a feel for what works. BW works.
|
In general it seems to be that you want to add a lot of abilities and make it "micro focused" that way.
Not necessarily. They just show examples easier. if i was to talk about movementspeed, how units walk i would not be able to do that over text.
There are literally thousands of way to make this happen.
What do you think about the concept of macro in this future rts?
Not sure i understand what you mean.
Easy to macro. Same as in sc2.
Still important how many production buildings you have.
|
On July 29 2017 07:34 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 06:14 L_Master wrote:On July 29 2017 04:29 Foxxan wrote:On July 29 2017 03:14 L_Master wrote:On July 28 2017 23:51 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:28 Ancestral wrote:On July 28 2017 23:11 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information. Wrong dude. As i said, the concept is old. You are thinking in old terms. I never stated how you scout for example. You are leaving out very many intells here and assuming BW is the way to go. What do you mean by the RTS "concept" is old? It's less old than fighting games or FPSs, which are still plenty active as far as development, casual play, and ESPORTS. The thinking in rts games are old, there are no modern thinking made in rts games. The old "concept" is: High buildtime without any interraction with your opponent. Meaning, you build supply, units, gets your economy bigger, can take litteral several minutes this alone. No real micro involved in this period, or real tough decisions or tactics. Big emphasize of hardcounters. Very outdated. Yes some old concepts can still be good but there are several that doesnt fit in a modern rts game. From curiosity, let's run with this. What would you see in a game if you were designing one. Obviously, the RTS genre itself is still enjoyed by many, so I don't think it quite makes the concept of RTS outdated...but what you seem to be suggesting is some fundamental to changes to how RTS plays. In your updated version of RTS, can you give some sort of conceptual idea of how game flow/unit interactions/etc would operate? That is a hard thing to do. Deponding on what kind of RTS design it is. Not sure i understand your question either? My word knowledge is rather bad. Yes i want to change how RTS games are played. Not sure how to describe it, without getting a headache. And i usually am vague with my explanations, if i was to try and really make people understand it would take a while. Not something i really wanna do. Still i dont quite understand what kind of answer you would have liked. You talk about how the RTS concept is old and designers don't understand the format. To me, this means that you have some ideas of what designers should do differently. I was just curious what your thoughts are. Right now, it feels sort of like if I was learning to play an instrument and you said "you're playing is bad", this may be true; but it's not very useful for understanding. You haven't said why it's bad/what should be better. Right now the only thing I know is "Foxxan thinks RTS design concept is old", but don't really have any idea what that means, or what could/should be different. I understand what you mean now. Hmm. Make marines/marauders, move to protoss. Terran has big advantage now. Protoss makes zealots/sentries. Now protoss has adantage and terran cant fight. Terran moves home. Protoss move to terran natural. Terran gets stim. Protoss cant fight, needs to go home. Another scenario bio+medivacs vs zealots/stalkers/sentires. Protoss has no chance, cant fight. Protoss adds colossus, now terran has no chance. Terran adds vikings. Terran has a chance now. Terran does alot of hit and run in combat. Against storm, also splits. Protoss uses blink stalkers to snipe vikings and uses spells. So what we have here in a conrete way is a cat and mouse type of gameplay. At the same time there is not much micro involved for protoss here. The tactics in combat.. Are bland. Vikings shoot colossus, stalkers shoot vikings. Bio kite and do its insane damage. This whole deathball vs deathball doesnt have much finesse or color. Bad stuff: cat and mouse gameplay and one sided micro I would change this drastically. For example, instead of viking hardcountering colossus, they should instead add some sort of tactic used in combat. Perhaps transform to the ground and get to the backfront of protoss armee. While being able to be microed as well. This shouldnt work in sc2, but if we use our imagination how an rts could look like. My point is, units should add some sort of tactic to the race instead of having the "outdated" hardcounter formula. It aint interesting or fun. So in sc2, you make a few stalkers move outside zerg natural and pokes a bit, then moves home. Protoss uses walls against zerglings and roaches. Nothing Really Happens here. You play with yourself pretty much, in an rts game. Thats very wrong. What could be happening then? Well first off, units shouldnt hardcounter each other especially so early in the game. The strengt of each armee and production needs to be more equal. With that said, if protoss wants to poke outside zerg with stalkers? Then do it. When the zerglings gets speed? It shouldnt force protoss to be the mouse here. Protoss could stay. Now here, there are so many possibilites to do here, even when its this early in the game. I mean designwise. And not to be arrogant but i dont really want to talk about my personal ideas much. The zerglings vs stalkers in this scenario should have micro value added. How? Many ways. Just to try and give a picture of what i mean even though the example might not work in practice before beeing tested. Zerglings slightly slower than stalkers with the speedupgrade. Instead they get the burrow ability from roaches. Zerglings press burrow->Now you need to decide where you want to go or else you unburrow immediately. Where you decide to go, the enemy sees this and the zerglings pop up there, toss can dance around this. No cooldown. There are like one million ways of designing an rts game.
i mean, isn't this kind of how a lot of BW matches work? TvZ in particular - specific units and upgrades give each side distinct advantages at different points in the game. terran has the early advantage with marine/medic until zerg gets mutas out, giving them the advantage., until terran gets marine range, then zerg responds with lurkers, then terran counters them with tanks, then zerg gets defilers, then terran starts massing up science vessels...
bw has early game unit counters too, remember that early game protoss roflstomps terran so hard they have to turtle in their base and wait for tanks to do anything.
strict unit counters are important to rts games, regardless of whether they require heavy micro or not - they're part of what forces tactical decision making, and they also help boost the defender's advantage if you have time to scout and respond to an incoming attack. without proper unit counters in place you end up with zvz, aka (arguably) the worst matchup in both bw and sc2. you just smash armies into each other to see which is bigger (see sc2 roach vs roach), or who can micro better (see bw muta vs muta). at least the 2nd one is kind of fun to watch, but the actual strategy element is lacking.
|
This post is just sad its just another...
"yey we finally got something new... let's shit on SC2 as much as we can in our BW General, and dare if someone say that he enjoy SC2.. here is milion unrelevant arguments why is XX better than YY"...
I'm really sick of this... StarCraft is still StarCraft it doesn't matter if you like SC2 or BW you still like StarCraft as an RTS and this constant "mouse&cat" with "BW vs SC" is just old boring and nothing constructive will come from it in 2017...
|
On July 29 2017 08:39 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 07:34 Foxxan wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 L_Master wrote:On July 29 2017 04:29 Foxxan wrote:On July 29 2017 03:14 L_Master wrote:On July 28 2017 23:51 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:28 Ancestral wrote:On July 28 2017 23:11 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:
[quote]
Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions.
ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information. Wrong dude. As i said, the concept is old. You are thinking in old terms. I never stated how you scout for example. You are leaving out very many intells here and assuming BW is the way to go. What do you mean by the RTS "concept" is old? It's less old than fighting games or FPSs, which are still plenty active as far as development, casual play, and ESPORTS. The thinking in rts games are old, there are no modern thinking made in rts games. The old "concept" is: High buildtime without any interraction with your opponent. Meaning, you build supply, units, gets your economy bigger, can take litteral several minutes this alone. No real micro involved in this period, or real tough decisions or tactics. Big emphasize of hardcounters. Very outdated. Yes some old concepts can still be good but there are several that doesnt fit in a modern rts game. From curiosity, let's run with this. What would you see in a game if you were designing one. Obviously, the RTS genre itself is still enjoyed by many, so I don't think it quite makes the concept of RTS outdated...but what you seem to be suggesting is some fundamental to changes to how RTS plays. In your updated version of RTS, can you give some sort of conceptual idea of how game flow/unit interactions/etc would operate? That is a hard thing to do. Deponding on what kind of RTS design it is. Not sure i understand your question either? My word knowledge is rather bad. Yes i want to change how RTS games are played. Not sure how to describe it, without getting a headache. And i usually am vague with my explanations, if i was to try and really make people understand it would take a while. Not something i really wanna do. Still i dont quite understand what kind of answer you would have liked. You talk about how the RTS concept is old and designers don't understand the format. To me, this means that you have some ideas of what designers should do differently. I was just curious what your thoughts are. Right now, it feels sort of like if I was learning to play an instrument and you said "you're playing is bad", this may be true; but it's not very useful for understanding. You haven't said why it's bad/what should be better. Right now the only thing I know is "Foxxan thinks RTS design concept is old", but don't really have any idea what that means, or what could/should be different. I understand what you mean now. Hmm. Make marines/marauders, move to protoss. Terran has big advantage now. Protoss makes zealots/sentries. Now protoss has adantage and terran cant fight. Terran moves home. Protoss move to terran natural. Terran gets stim. Protoss cant fight, needs to go home. Another scenario bio+medivacs vs zealots/stalkers/sentires. Protoss has no chance, cant fight. Protoss adds colossus, now terran has no chance. Terran adds vikings. Terran has a chance now. Terran does alot of hit and run in combat. Against storm, also splits. Protoss uses blink stalkers to snipe vikings and uses spells. So what we have here in a conrete way is a cat and mouse type of gameplay. At the same time there is not much micro involved for protoss here. The tactics in combat.. Are bland. Vikings shoot colossus, stalkers shoot vikings. Bio kite and do its insane damage. This whole deathball vs deathball doesnt have much finesse or color. Bad stuff: cat and mouse gameplay and one sided micro I would change this drastically. For example, instead of viking hardcountering colossus, they should instead add some sort of tactic used in combat. Perhaps transform to the ground and get to the backfront of protoss armee. While being able to be microed as well. This shouldnt work in sc2, but if we use our imagination how an rts could look like. My point is, units should add some sort of tactic to the race instead of having the "outdated" hardcounter formula. It aint interesting or fun. So in sc2, you make a few stalkers move outside zerg natural and pokes a bit, then moves home. Protoss uses walls against zerglings and roaches. Nothing Really Happens here. You play with yourself pretty much, in an rts game. Thats very wrong. What could be happening then? Well first off, units shouldnt hardcounter each other especially so early in the game. The strengt of each armee and production needs to be more equal. With that said, if protoss wants to poke outside zerg with stalkers? Then do it. When the zerglings gets speed? It shouldnt force protoss to be the mouse here. Protoss could stay. Now here, there are so many possibilites to do here, even when its this early in the game. I mean designwise. And not to be arrogant but i dont really want to talk about my personal ideas much. The zerglings vs stalkers in this scenario should have micro value added. How? Many ways. Just to try and give a picture of what i mean even though the example might not work in practice before beeing tested. Zerglings slightly slower than stalkers with the speedupgrade. Instead they get the burrow ability from roaches. Zerglings press burrow->Now you need to decide where you want to go or else you unburrow immediately. Where you decide to go, the enemy sees this and the zerglings pop up there, toss can dance around this. No cooldown. There are like one million ways of designing an rts game. i mean, isn't this kind of how a lot of BW matches work? TvZ in particular - specific units and upgrades give each side distinct advantages at different points in the game. terran has the early advantage with marine/medic until zerg gets mutas out, giving them the advantage., until terran gets marine range, then zerg responds with lurkers, then terran counters them with tanks, then zerg gets defilers, then terran starts massing up science vessels... bw has early game unit counters too, remember that early game protoss roflstomps terran so hard they have to turtle in their base and wait for tanks to do anything. strict unit counters are important to rts games, regardless of whether they require heavy micro or not - they're part of what forces tactical decision making, and they also help boost the defender's advantage if you have time to scout and respond to an incoming attack. without proper unit counters in place you end up with zvz, aka (arguably) the worst matchup in both bw and sc2. you just smash armies into each other to see which is bigger (see sc2 roach vs roach), or who can micro better (see bw muta vs muta). at least the 2nd one is kind of fun to watch, but the actual strategy element is lacking.
most of the counters in bw are soft and kinda multidimensional (depend on many factors) so you have a ton more space for counterplay in many different ways, in the micro details over longer time and space, and also in the macro details, so you're rarely stuck in a binary situation of "gotta run away with all my units" or "gotta directly inflict damage with all my units" and games tend to play out different from one another and more multilayered, rarely ends on a crippling shot, develops in complexity
|
On July 29 2017 08:58 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
here is milion unrelevant arguments why is XX better than YY"...
and nothing constructive will come from it in 2017...
do 12 year olds have consistent exposure to a physical qwerty keyboard these days?
i don't know if the PC was the essential home appliance it was in 2000.
|
On July 29 2017 09:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:58 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
here is milion unrelevant arguments why is XX better than YY"...
and nothing constructive will come from it in 2017... do 12 year olds have consistent exposure to a physical qwerty keyboard these days? i don't know if the PC was the essential home appliance it was in 2000.
I would absouletely say the average 12 year old generally has much more exposure to PCs in recent years than in 2000. Most households (at least in Europe, should imagine most other regions fair worse) did not have a PC, where as in recent years it is quite rare to encounter a household that does not have a PC or laptop. What was your point
? Or is it another boring link to kids playing war gaimz on their phones these days instead of on PCs (they're not btw, the kind of kids who were attracted to RTS are in this gen are mostly playing something else competetive like Dota2)
|
On July 29 2017 09:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:58 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
here is milion unrelevant arguments why is XX better than YY"...
and nothing constructive will come from it in 2017... do 12 year olds have consistent exposure to a physical qwerty keyboard these days? i don't know if the PC was the essential home appliance it was in 2000.
Are you kidding? Now every teenager has a laptop.
|
On July 29 2017 08:39 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 07:34 Foxxan wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 L_Master wrote:On July 29 2017 04:29 Foxxan wrote:On July 29 2017 03:14 L_Master wrote:On July 28 2017 23:51 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:28 Ancestral wrote:On July 28 2017 23:11 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:
[quote]
Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions.
ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information. Wrong dude. As i said, the concept is old. You are thinking in old terms. I never stated how you scout for example. You are leaving out very many intells here and assuming BW is the way to go. What do you mean by the RTS "concept" is old? It's less old than fighting games or FPSs, which are still plenty active as far as development, casual play, and ESPORTS. The thinking in rts games are old, there are no modern thinking made in rts games. The old "concept" is: High buildtime without any interraction with your opponent. Meaning, you build supply, units, gets your economy bigger, can take litteral several minutes this alone. No real micro involved in this period, or real tough decisions or tactics. Big emphasize of hardcounters. Very outdated. Yes some old concepts can still be good but there are several that doesnt fit in a modern rts game. From curiosity, let's run with this. What would you see in a game if you were designing one. Obviously, the RTS genre itself is still enjoyed by many, so I don't think it quite makes the concept of RTS outdated...but what you seem to be suggesting is some fundamental to changes to how RTS plays. In your updated version of RTS, can you give some sort of conceptual idea of how game flow/unit interactions/etc would operate? That is a hard thing to do. Deponding on what kind of RTS design it is. Not sure i understand your question either? My word knowledge is rather bad. Yes i want to change how RTS games are played. Not sure how to describe it, without getting a headache. And i usually am vague with my explanations, if i was to try and really make people understand it would take a while. Not something i really wanna do. Still i dont quite understand what kind of answer you would have liked. You talk about how the RTS concept is old and designers don't understand the format. To me, this means that you have some ideas of what designers should do differently. I was just curious what your thoughts are. Right now, it feels sort of like if I was learning to play an instrument and you said "you're playing is bad", this may be true; but it's not very useful for understanding. You haven't said why it's bad/what should be better. Right now the only thing I know is "Foxxan thinks RTS design concept is old", but don't really have any idea what that means, or what could/should be different. I understand what you mean now. Hmm. Make marines/marauders, move to protoss. Terran has big advantage now. Protoss makes zealots/sentries. Now protoss has adantage and terran cant fight. Terran moves home. Protoss move to terran natural. Terran gets stim. Protoss cant fight, needs to go home. Another scenario bio+medivacs vs zealots/stalkers/sentires. Protoss has no chance, cant fight. Protoss adds colossus, now terran has no chance. Terran adds vikings. Terran has a chance now. Terran does alot of hit and run in combat. Against storm, also splits. Protoss uses blink stalkers to snipe vikings and uses spells. So what we have here in a conrete way is a cat and mouse type of gameplay. At the same time there is not much micro involved for protoss here. The tactics in combat.. Are bland. Vikings shoot colossus, stalkers shoot vikings. Bio kite and do its insane damage. This whole deathball vs deathball doesnt have much finesse or color. Bad stuff: cat and mouse gameplay and one sided micro I would change this drastically. For example, instead of viking hardcountering colossus, they should instead add some sort of tactic used in combat. Perhaps transform to the ground and get to the backfront of protoss armee. While being able to be microed as well. This shouldnt work in sc2, but if we use our imagination how an rts could look like. My point is, units should add some sort of tactic to the race instead of having the "outdated" hardcounter formula. It aint interesting or fun. So in sc2, you make a few stalkers move outside zerg natural and pokes a bit, then moves home. Protoss uses walls against zerglings and roaches. Nothing Really Happens here. You play with yourself pretty much, in an rts game. Thats very wrong. What could be happening then? Well first off, units shouldnt hardcounter each other especially so early in the game. The strengt of each armee and production needs to be more equal. With that said, if protoss wants to poke outside zerg with stalkers? Then do it. When the zerglings gets speed? It shouldnt force protoss to be the mouse here. Protoss could stay. Now here, there are so many possibilites to do here, even when its this early in the game. I mean designwise. And not to be arrogant but i dont really want to talk about my personal ideas much. The zerglings vs stalkers in this scenario should have micro value added. How? Many ways. Just to try and give a picture of what i mean even though the example might not work in practice before beeing tested. Zerglings slightly slower than stalkers with the speedupgrade. Instead they get the burrow ability from roaches. Zerglings press burrow->Now you need to decide where you want to go or else you unburrow immediately. Where you decide to go, the enemy sees this and the zerglings pop up there, toss can dance around this. No cooldown. There are like one million ways of designing an rts game. i mean, isn't this kind of how a lot of BW matches work? TvZ in particular - specific units and upgrades give each side distinct advantages at different points in the game. terran has the early advantage with marine/medic until zerg gets mutas out, giving them the advantage., until terran gets marine range, then zerg responds with lurkers, then terran counters them with tanks, then zerg gets defilers, then terran starts massing up science vessels... bw has early game unit counters too, remember that early game protoss roflstomps terran so hard they have to turtle in their base and wait for tanks to do anything. strict unit counters are important to rts games, regardless of whether they require heavy micro or not - they're part of what forces tactical decision making, and they also help boost the defender's advantage if you have time to scout and respond to an incoming attack. without proper unit counters in place you end up with zvz, aka (arguably) the worst matchup in both bw and sc2. you just smash armies into each other to see which is bigger (see sc2 roach vs roach), or who can micro better (see bw muta vs muta). at least the 2nd one is kind of fun to watch, but the actual strategy element is lacking.
There's a point in TvZ where Terran gets +1 and range, but lurkers are not out yet - but Zerg wants to get a third. This is where Zerg has to use muta micro to prevent Terran from attacking too quickly.
Maybe the Zerg doesn't succeed, but cancels the third and builds it in another corner - while sending hydras there (in cross map scenarios). That's kind of a "draw" where Zerg gets a later third, but Terran can't deny it or do damage in the main either.
Or maybe Terran straight up kills the third which is a victory since Zerg doesn't cancel. Sometimes Terran tries to kill it, but muta/ling finally pics the Terran force apart. That's a Zerg victory.
It's VERY micro intensive - it's all about picking off units that don't move in formation. In SC2, the Terran army would just walk into the third and kill it. This is because there are no banelings in BW - muta/ling is strictly inferior to the Terran army if there's formation movement and stutter stepping. Muta stacking works weird in SC2 as well.
|
On July 29 2017 03:14 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 23:51 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:28 Ancestral wrote:On July 28 2017 23:11 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information. Wrong dude. As i said, the concept is old. You are thinking in old terms. I never stated how you scout for example. You are leaving out very many intells here and assuming BW is the way to go. What do you mean by the RTS "concept" is old? It's less old than fighting games or FPSs, which are still plenty active as far as development, casual play, and ESPORTS. The thinking in rts games are old, there are no modern thinking made in rts games. The old "concept" is: High buildtime without any interraction with your opponent. Meaning, you build supply, units, gets your economy bigger, can take litteral several minutes this alone. No real micro involved in this period, or real tough decisions or tactics. Big emphasize of hardcounters. Very outdated. Yes some old concepts can still be good but there are several that doesnt fit in a modern rts game. From curiosity, let's run with this. What would you see in a game if you were designing one. Obviously, the RTS genre itself is still enjoyed by many, so I don't think it quite makes the concept of RTS outdated...but what you seem to be suggesting is some fundamental to changes to how RTS plays. In your updated version of RTS, can you give some sort of conceptual idea of how game flow/unit interactions/etc would operate?
Easy, start with 12 workers and 400 minerals. You could throw down a pool and gas and make three workers, or you could make three workers and make your way towards towards the expansion with one.
The meta would be different, since now 12 pool gas is the aggressive build and three hatch before pool is the macro build. But it would still be an RTS game. There would still be two barracks and two gate builds (maybe 3 rax and 3 gate?!). You might have maps with 12 mineral patches where 3 of them run out faster just to kick start the game.
|
What I don't like about SC2 is that it has many things that in my opinion should not exist in an RTS. There is not much advantage in highground, there are units that break this like the Reaper or the Colossus. Another unit that for me has been a cancer is Medevac, being a transport unit but also has the function of healing becomes an obligation to build it and the drops are not produced by tactical decision but because you build four or eight Medevacs To heal your bio units and it is stupid not to take advantage of them to try a drop if there is the opportunity, therefore producing this unit is not a tactical decision, it is an obligation when you have bio units (and doomdrops are stupid).
Deathballs are unacceptable and no aesthetic in an RTS, that coupled with poorly designed units creates very unfair situations; The other I saw a video of Innovation against Scarlett, Scarlett had mass banelings and did not need skills to destroy the Army of Innovation, this has happened to me a lot in ladder, Zerg players who earn me with broken units like the banelings.
|
On July 29 2017 09:32 Lazare1969 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 09:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 29 2017 08:58 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
here is milion unrelevant arguments why is XX better than YY"...
and nothing constructive will come from it in 2017... do 12 year olds have consistent exposure to a physical qwerty keyboard these days? i don't know if the PC was the essential home appliance it was in 2000. Are you kidding? Now every teenager has a laptop.
its a question. you've provided nothing but an anecdote. so easy off with the "are you kidding" BS.
http://fortune.com/2016/06/09/pc-sales-are-worse-than-you-think/
"The company's researchers had thought that a slowdown in sales of smartphones and tablets, which many younger people use as their primary computing devices, would mean stronger PC sales, but that did not play out as expected."
i think Gaming Specific PCs sales are up. However, most 12 year olds don't have the money to buy one. So they have to hope some kind of general use PC is laying around the house.
On July 29 2017 09:29 KrOjah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 09:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 29 2017 08:58 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
here is milion unrelevant arguments why is XX better than YY"...
and nothing constructive will come from it in 2017... do 12 year olds have consistent exposure to a physical qwerty keyboard these days? i don't know if the PC was the essential home appliance it was in 2000. I would absouletely say the average 12 year old generally has much more exposure to PCs in recent years than in 2000. Most households (at least in Europe, should imagine most other regions fair worse) did not have a PC, where as in recent years it is quite rare to encounter a household that does not have a PC or laptop. What was your point ? Or is it another boring link to kids playing war gaimz on their phones these days instead of on PCs (they're not btw, the kind of kids who were attracted to RTS are in this gen are mostly playing something else competetive like Dota2)
in 2000 every kid i knew had a PC in their house. the internet is definitely a lot faster with a lot lower latency now than in 2000 though. That aspect has seen a huge improvement.
|
Just ignore JJ and you will be happy, like in the thread of the NBA, they literally expelled him from there.
|
For me there were a couple major issues, but I don't know how many of them translated to the wider audience. As the onset I was very into SC2 and trying hard to like it, but it rapidly deteriorated to the point where I actively disliked it.
As a viewer, fight's felt too "blob of stuff vs blob of stuff." At the top levels players are obviously doing lots of microing and little nuanced things during fights, but you just can't tell. I think maybe one of the reasons marine splits were so hyped up originally was their visibility. But in a normal fight there's just a lot of tiny units and a ton of particles everywhere and you really can't tell what's going on because everything is either too small or too covered up. In Broodwar everything was always far more apparent because the screen just felt less crowded.
As a player, and partially as a viewer, the balance always felt very poor and this was exacerbated by the map pool when I played. Lots of small, close together maps and lots of strats that involved cheesy-feeling play like reaper rushes that were very effective even in pro-play.
I also hated a lot of the general mechanics of the game, such as:
- Marauders having stim and a slow
- Forcefields (Both using and playing against. Looked away for 1 second against zerg? Placed it one hex off during their attempted runby? Well they're up your ramp and you lose the game now. Not watching army for a second? Well it's sectioned off now and you lose the game. It just wasn't enjoyable.)
- Medivacs, conceptually (Your healing unit also being used for drops resulting in too much flexibility)
- Nydus Worms, conceptually (Having to invest in the ability to drop gives a nice opportunity cost and good counterplay; Nydus just bypassed too much of that.)
- Wall climbing, conceptually (It felt like bypassing terrain just took something away from the game and the AI was very poor at coping with units that wen't up a wall out of range)
The list of course goes on, but that's just to highlight many of the things I didn't like.
There were also a bunch of issues Koreans had with using SC2 in PC bangs in general.
And then, of course, there was the association between SC2 and the death of the old BW scene. Many of the same people pushing for SC2 to succeed, e.g. Blizzard, were directly responsible for what happened to BW. That caused a lot of resentment.
In many ways that probably is what led to League of Legends growing so rapidly in Korea. The absence of BW and animosity toward or disinterest of SC2, but the lingering desire for some kind of big competitive scene. Riot came along at just the right time and gave something to do with all that lingering infrastructure that had been used in BW (teams, coaching, sponsorships, TV channels and their venues, personnel, equipment, etc.). They largely gave the Koreans free reign to run the league and they ran with it.
|
I feel like making this thread in the BW forum is kind of throwing everyone a curve ball.
|
On July 29 2017 05:03 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 03:44 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
i think there can be good games in sc2, just not as good not as often, and lot of pretty bad games Re: opisska: This is my thought as well. I often watch TL's "top games of 20XX" and I even went through the trouble of watching the rest of the series in some cases. There were a few TvZ's I truly thought were good games; Inno vs. TaeJa was a good game too. SC2 just doesn't deliver those games frequently enough for me to commit to watching anything but the "best of." Certainly doesn't motivate me to pick the game back up.
This is certainly a valid point. I watch so much SC2 that I come by the good games naturally, but it's true that a lot of games is just filler. I never really watch more BW than what someine point to as a good game, ao I have no idea how doea BW compare to SC2 in good game frequency. The advantage of LoTV is that the boring games are usually done with pretty fast. Also it's matchup dependent - most of TvPs are very similar to each other, but TvTs tend to be variable as hell. TvZ can be formulaic, but leads to good games often anyway, ZvP is really hit or miss, ZvZ is a few total gems in a sea of rubbish, PvP I don't get much at all ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
