On April 19 2024 12:25 RogerChillingworth wrote: The game may turn out to be loads of fun, especially for players outside of the RTS space, but I was hoping that one of these studios was going to take on the challenge of creating a very mechanical and fun game. The argument seems to be that a high APM requirement and lots of multitasking is either tedious or exclusive, but I don't think it paints an accurate picture. I think some of the harder mechanical RTS aren't as fun as they could be for different reasons—not because they're mechanical, and not necessarily because there's 1-2 minutes of down time at the start of the game.
I always felt that if you filled an aesthetically badass game with loads of cool moments and fulfilling interactions, interested players would rise to the occasion to learn the game and participate in the fun that's being had. Maybe this kind of game wouldn't "be for everyone", but I find the premise of making a game for everyone to be a bit of a false one anyways.
All that said, I'm very interested to experience it for myself. After a long drought of RTS, it feels like we're getting many seasons of Game of Thrones all at once. Pretty wild times!
Maybe I'm on the edge of NDA territory here but some of the barrier-to-entry/beginner friendly rhetoric just feels like lip service. IMO, in a real time game, all you can do is REALLOCATE clicks/attention to different sectors. And, indeed, nothing about the playtest made me feel that it was "easier"—I just had to focus on different things.
TBH I didn't even play that much, but I felt like I was pretty quickly being pushed to maximize my attention/clicks. I mean, maybe their test pool was small enough so that I played myself into the tryhard MMR pretty fast? Still, from what they claim about internal/employee tests, they've succeeded at compressing the skill gap from the bottom up, so low-tier people have a better chance. You always have to keep in mind from a TL.net/hardcore RTS community standpoint, our discourse ignores prolly 99% of the RTS community.
On April 19 2024 14:56 Waxangel wrote: Still, from what they claim about internal/employee tests, they've succeeded at compressing the skill gap from the bottom up, so low-tier people have a better chance.
What does that mean in practice? Is it just that 'classic RTS' skills matter less in favor of different skills, or is it that the game outcome is more random?
On April 19 2024 14:56 Waxangel wrote: Still, from what they claim about internal/employee tests, they've succeeded at compressing the skill gap from the bottom up, so low-tier people have a better chance.
What does that mean in practice? Is it just that 'classic RTS' skills matter less in favor of different skills, or is it that the game outcome is more random?
ionno what the mechanism is, but they claim the non-RTS/lower-skilled people are still having fun, so maybe they've found something at that level. At least for my personal experience, I thought it was an equally APM-intensive game as any other 'traditional' RTS—just with actions reallocated to other places (because that's how real time games inherently work). I didn't feel like it was any easier or harder; just that I was focusing my attention in diff places.
@Waxangel, don't take this question in a wrong way, please - but what RTS did you play beside Blizzard ones?
I.e. if you had enough experience in C&Cs, AoEs, DoW / CoH, TA-likes and a bunch of other titles, and this game feels very different from _all_ of them - it's one thing.
If you're mostly Blizz-RTS player, then it could be that this game's formula was already used in another game and it's not so radically different.
To make an RTS/RTT with less demand on mechanical skill, either you put a lot of QoL and automation into your game like Zero-K, or you put some restriction on unit control or unit movement like in Total War, RUSE, Kohan, Majesty etc to make units fundamentally less micro-able.
Loved the comparison in supply. Both had some great points :D And just because there is less macro doesn't mean it's less mechanical. Don't get those confused! I'm reading through this thread and have a feeling some people kinda interchange does two but they are two completely different things
Looking at the documentary in more detail, looks like there are 8 units and 3 structures right now (one for increasing resource gathering rate and two tech buildings that unlock units):
I know it is early and all but the way they designed the UI doesn't really leave room for much going forward. The 8 units seem to be selected before the match in a loadout style:
At the end of this interview, David Kim says the game will be free to play and they will be selling units (that can also be unlocked by playing) so that would also support the loadout idea.
On April 19 2024 18:15 _Spartak_ wrote: At the end of this interview, David Kim says the game will be free to play and they will be selling units (that can also be unlocked by playing) so that would also support the loadout idea.
On April 19 2024 12:25 RogerChillingworth wrote: The game may turn out to be loads of fun, especially for players outside of the RTS space, but I was hoping that one of these studios was going to take on the challenge of creating a very mechanical and fun game. The argument seems to be that a high APM requirement and lots of multitasking is either tedious or exclusive, but I don't think it paints an accurate picture. I think some of the harder mechanical RTS aren't as fun as they could be for different reasons—not because they're mechanical, and not necessarily because there's 1-2 minutes of down time at the start of the game.
I always felt that if you filled an aesthetically badass game with loads of cool moments and fulfilling interactions, interested players would rise to the occasion to learn the game and participate in the fun that's being had. Maybe this kind of game wouldn't "be for everyone", but I find the premise of making a game for everyone to be a bit of a false one anyways.
All that said, I'm very interested to experience it for myself. After a long drought of RTS, it feels like we're getting many seasons of Game of Thrones all at once. Pretty wild times!
Maybe I'm on the edge of NDA territory here but some of the barrier-to-entry/beginner friendly rhetoric just feels like lip service. IMO, in a real time game, all you can do is REALLOCATE clicks/attention to different sectors. And, indeed, nothing about the playtest made me feel that it was "easier"—I just had to focus on different things.
TBH I didn't even play that much, but I felt like I was pretty quickly being pushed to maximize my attention/clicks. I mean, maybe their test pool was small enough so that I played myself into the tryhard MMR pretty fast? Still, from what they claim about internal/employee tests, they've succeeded at compressing the skill gap from the bottom up, so low-tier people have a better chance. You always have to keep in mind from a TL.net/hardcore RTS community standpoint, our discourse ignores prolly 99% of the RTS community.
It's a good point. A competitive RTS needs to be about APM/mouse-precision, just as much as a competitive FPS needs to reward good aiming.
But what RTS game-designers needs to figure out is what types of clicks are fun and engaging and which are clicks for the sake of clicks.
On April 19 2024 12:25 RogerChillingworth wrote: The game may turn out to be loads of fun, especially for players outside of the RTS space, but I was hoping that one of these studios was going to take on the challenge of creating a very mechanical and fun game. The argument seems to be that a high APM requirement and lots of multitasking is either tedious or exclusive, but I don't think it paints an accurate picture. I think some of the harder mechanical RTS aren't as fun as they could be for different reasons—not because they're mechanical, and not necessarily because there's 1-2 minutes of down time at the start of the game.
I always felt that if you filled an aesthetically badass game with loads of cool moments and fulfilling interactions, interested players would rise to the occasion to learn the game and participate in the fun that's being had. Maybe this kind of game wouldn't "be for everyone", but I find the premise of making a game for everyone to be a bit of a false one anyways.
All that said, I'm very interested to experience it for myself. After a long drought of RTS, it feels like we're getting many seasons of Game of Thrones all at once. Pretty wild times!
Maybe I'm on the edge of NDA territory here but some of the barrier-to-entry/beginner friendly rhetoric just feels like lip service. IMO, in a real time game, all you can do is REALLOCATE clicks/attention to different sectors. And, indeed, nothing about the playtest made me feel that it was "easier"—I just had to focus on different things.
TBH I didn't even play that much, but I felt like I was pretty quickly being pushed to maximize my attention/clicks. I mean, maybe their test pool was small enough so that I played myself into the tryhard MMR pretty fast? Still, from what they claim about internal/employee tests, they've succeeded at compressing the skill gap from the bottom up, so low-tier people have a better chance. You always have to keep in mind from a TL.net/hardcore RTS community standpoint, our discourse ignores prolly 99% of the RTS community.
It's a good point. A competitive RTS needs to be about APM/mouse-precision, just as much as a competitive FPS needs to reward good aiming.
But what RTS game-designers needs to figure out is what types of clicks are fun and engaging and which are clicks for the sake of clicks.
Exactly. RTS games are games of mass clicking. Just as FPS are games of aiming. I get that mule calldown and larva injections aren't mass clicking actions that are extremely alluring. Even more so queuing marines from 8 barracks (or 14 since you play at a lower level) every 30 seconds also isn't very engaging as a game concept in 2024. But devs need to come up with new stuff. Not just QoL automation.
RTS games emerged as games of immersion, story and lore. They originally worked because they were novel and the concept was to be realistic and build bases and control armies in real time. Any form of gameplay was good.
But now it has evolved into a 1vs1 game. Both casual and competitive. And fluke game mechanics that were introduced because of setting or lore game deep and rich gameplay. Devs so far have been unable to intentionally design good RTS 1vs1 gameplay.
On top of that, besides 1vs1 play, even in single player devs have been unable to come up with novel game concepts. There are many things to try. I am not a creative person. And not a professional game dev. I don't go to investors and ask for millions because I have better ideas than anyone else. But some people do. And they seem to be completely idea bankrupt. Which puzzles me. I am sure I have a lot of bad ideas. But at least I have them.
The major leap devs have to make in my opinion is to be able to see RTS as an abstract game. See it purely as gameplay elements. Not as a a fantasy, SC of modern war simulator. I think one problem and limitation devs have is that everything has to make sense in-world. And then ideas get broken down or rejected or adapted based on their understanding of (competitive) RTS. Which is often not very good.
The best example to me is the resource system. There is no fundamental mathematical approach and evaluation as to how a resource system affects fundamental RTS gameplay.
Even more so queuing marines from 8 barracks (or 14 since you play at a lower level) every 30 seconds also isn't very engaging as a game concept in 2024. But devs need to come up with new stuff. Not just QoL automation.
As an example one of the type of "clicks" I hate the most in Sc2 is control-group navigation. And it clearly results in me being less receptive to mixing spellcasters into my army than what otherwise be the case because it makes army control much harder. Which is a shame because spellcasters can be fun.
From listening to David Kim's interview with Feardragon I am quite optimistic here, by far the most optimistic I been on behalf of any RTS.
The game is fast, action starts fast, APM is still rewarded but in a different way. That's aligned with my vision for a next-gen RTS which goes something like this:
- Sc2 like feelling of controlling units and amount of units (pace of units, lethality could perhaps be upped slightly but I rather have it closer to SC2 than to that of Stormgate) - Significant easier macro. - No need to click on units to cast abilities (manuvering units around should be easy). - Action starts fast (I wouldn't mind if we already started with a small army) and is frequent. - Game is "forgiving" in the sense that losing one battle rarely will cause you to lose the game, but rather only lose you some percentages. - Lots of strategic/tactical decisions around the map + interesting use of static defense to "secure" positions around the map.
On April 19 2024 12:25 RogerChillingworth wrote: The game may TurN out to be loads of fun, especially for players OutSide of the RTS space, but I was hoping that one of these studios was going to take on the challenge of creating a very mechanical and fun game. The argument seems to be that a high APM requirement and Lots of multitasking is either tedious or exclusive, but I don't think it paints an accurate picture. I think some of the harder mechanical RTS aren't as fun as they could be for different reasons—not because they're mechanical, and not necessarily because there's 1-2 minutes of down TIME at the Start of the game.
I always felt that if you filled an aesthetically badass game with loads of COol moments and fulfilling interactions, interested players would rise to the occasion to learn the game and participate in the fun that's being had. Maybe this kind of game wouldn't "be for everyone", but I find the premise of making a game for everyone to be a bit of a false one anyways.
All that said, I'M very interested to experience it for myself. After a long drought of RTS, it feels like we're getting many seasons of Game of Thrones all at once. Pretty Wild times!
Maybe I'M on the EdgE of NDA territory Here but some of the barrier-to-entry/beginner friendly rhetoric just feels like lip service. IMO, in a real TIME game, all you can do is REALLOCATE clicks/attention to different sectors. And, indeed, nothing about the playtest made me feel that it was "easier"—I just had to FoCuS on different things.
TBH I didn't even play that much, but I felt like I was pretty quickly being pushed to maximize my attention/clicks. I Mean, maybe their test pool was small enough so that I played myself into the Tryhard MMR pretty fast? Still, from what they claim about internal/employee tests, they've succeeded at compressing the skill gap from the bottom up, so low-tier people have a better Chance. You always have to keep in mind from a TL.net/hardcore RTS community standpoint, our discourse ignores prolly 99% of the RTS community.
Thanks for the info, that's reassuring. As long as the battles themselves aren't automated, I'm still here.
Eager to see the look of the game and experience how it feels. I want to see some unit designs
But now it has evolved into a 1vs1 game. Both casual and competitive. And fluke game mechanics that were introduced because of setting or lore game deep and rich gameplay. Devs so far have been unable to intentionally design good RTS 1vs1 gameplay.
...
this is not the case, most RTS players play either PVE or Coop, 1v1 is not as big as a site like this here that focuses pretty much only on this aspect might make you think and PVE wise there were decent RTS in recent years
and you dont need to make totally new inventions to add to the RTS genre, a good idea and execution can do the trick, and a few fresh take surley dont hurt there
Even more so queuing marines from 8 barracks (or 14 since you play at a lower level) every 30 seconds also isn't very engaging as a game concept in 2024. But devs need to come up with new stuff. Not just QoL automation.
As an example one of the type of "clicks" I hate the most in Sc2 is control-group navigation. And it clearly results in me being less receptive to mixing spellcasters into my army than what otherwise be the case because it makes army control much harder. Which is a shame because spellcasters can be fun.
From listening to David Kim's interview with Feardragon I am quite optimistic here, by far the most optimistic I been on behalf of any RTS.
The game is fast, action starts fast, APM is still rewarded but in a different way. That's aligned with my vision for a next-gen RTS which goes something like this:
- Sc2 like feelling of controlling units and amount of units (pace of units, lethality could perhaps be upped slightly but I rather have it closer to SC2 than to that of Stormgate) - Significant easier macro. - No need to click on units to cast abilities (manuvering units around should be easy). - Action starts fast (I wouldn't mind if we already started with a small army) and is frequent. - Game is "forgiving" in the sense that losing one battle rarely will cause you to lose the game, but rather only lose you some percentages. - Lots of strategic/tactical decisions around the map + interesting use of static defense to "secure" positions around the map.
This "action starts fast" approach is how they fucked up SC2 maps. Because the game skipped the whole setup phase where lots of scouting is done, the maps devolved into almost identical 2 player maps. That has me worried.
I also didn't like the fact that one of the developers said that deathballs are an unavoidable part of RTS games. This was one of the worst aspects of SC2, in my opinion, and he seemed resigned as far as fixing it goes.
One thing they could implement, since they're experimenting with the UI, is drawing unit formations/movement. A while ago someone posted a video from a game where you could do that. It was some 2D space fleet simulation or something? That was pretty cool.
But now it has evolved into a 1vs1 game. Both casual and competitive. And fluke game mechanics that were introduced because of setting or lore game deep and rich gameplay. Devs so far have been unable to intentionally design good RTS 1vs1 gameplay.
...
this is not the case, most RTS players play either PVE or Coop, 1v1 is not as big as a site like this here that focuses pretty much only on this aspect might make you think and PVE wise there were decent RTS in recent years
and you dont[sic] need to make totally new inventions to add to the RTS genre, a good idea and execution can do the trick, and a few fresh take surley[sic] dont[sic] hurt there
It is absolutely correct because it HAS evolved into a multi-player 1vs1 game. I never said that it didn't also stay the same. Or that it didn't also evolve in other things. Neither I am saying that you can't make games based on all those other evolution of RTS.
The problem is when a game dev wants to make the game around the 1vs1 mode, but they don't give it any thought.
And besides that, the problem is there haven't been many good ideas implemented well.
Even more so queuing marines from 8 barracks (or 14 since you play at a lower level) every 30 seconds also isn't very engaging as a game concept in 2024. But devs need to come up with new stuff. Not just QoL automation.
As an example one of the type of "clicks" I hate the most in Sc2 is control-group navigation. And it clearly results in me being less receptive to mixing spellcasters into my army than what otherwise be the case because it makes army control much harder. Which is a shame because spellcasters can be fun.
From listening to David Kim's interview with Feardragon I am quite optimistic here, by far the most optimistic I been on behalf of any RTS.
The game is fast, action starts fast, APM is still rewarded but in a different way. That's aligned with my vision for a next-gen RTS which goes something like this:
- Sc2 like feelling of controlling units and amount of units (pace of units, lethality could perhaps be upped slightly but I rather have it closer to SC2 than to that of Stormgate) - Significant easier macro. - No need to click on units to cast abilities (manuvering units around should be easy). - Action starts fast (I wouldn't mind if we already started with a small army) and is frequent. - Game is "forgiving" in the sense that losing one battle rarely will cause you to lose the game, but rather only lose you some percentages. - Lots of strategic/tactical decisions around the map + interesting use of static defense to "secure" positions around the map.
This "action starts fast" approach is how they fucked up SC2 maps. Because the game skipped the whole setup phase where lots of scouting is done, the maps devolved into almost identical 2 player maps. That has me worried.
I also didn't like the fact that one of the developers said that deathballs are an unavoidable part of RTS games. This was one of the worst aspects of SC2, in my opinion, and he seemed resigned as far as fixing it goes.
One thing they could implement, since they're experimenting with the UI, is drawing unit formations/movement. A while ago someone posted a video from a game where you could do that. It was some 2D space fleet simulation or something? That was pretty cool.
I think when you hear "make action start faster" you are taking starcraft as the base and +/-10%, but what I am thinking of is something brand new relative to Starcraft. I am not thinking of action as 1-2 reaper/adept micro or the limited amount of variation we have in builds/unit-decisions. Instead, early game would look nothing like we are used to from blizzard RTS.
Early game should still be different from midgame and involve real strategical decisions. This idea where we wait for minutes to build up a real economy before we can express real skills in terms of mechanics needs to go away. A next-gen RTS needs to rethink the early-game and make real skill-expression and decisions happen ASAP.
For anyone interested in hearing a little more about the game, I did an interview with David Kim asking about some specific topics people often want to know more about.
* What does he consider an RTS * Accessibility versus skill expression * Thoughts on unit lethality * How much esports is considered in the game design * What he's approaching different from StarCraft 2
But now it has evolved into a 1vs1 game. Both casual and competitive. And fluke game mechanics that were introduced because of setting or lore game deep and rich gameplay. Devs so far have been unable to intentionally design good RTS 1vs1 gameplay.
...
this is not the case, most RTS players play either PVE or Coop, 1v1 is not as big as a site like this here that focuses pretty much only on this aspect might make you think and PVE wise there were decent RTS in recent years
and you dont[sic] need to make totally new inventions to add to the RTS genre, a good idea and execution can do the trick, and a few fresh take surley[sic] dont[sic] hurt there
It is absolutely correct because it HAS evolved into a multi-player 1vs1 game. I never said that it didn't also stay the same. Or that it didn't also evolve in other things. Neither I am saying that you can't make games based on all those other evolution of RTS.
The problem is when a game dev wants to make the game around the 1vs1 mode, but they don't give it any thought.
And besides that, the problem is there haven't been many good ideas implemented well.
ok for me the majority of the player base makes what type of game it is (and the majority doesnt pvp), for you its something else it seems which is also ok
Actually looking forward to this game a lot. As much as I want to just have a remix of StarCraft to kinda relive the things I enjoyed, I think there’s a huge opportunity to make a new kind of strategy game that is gonna be really fun. And probably my biggest concern for stormgate is that if you try to be like StarCraft but stretch it too much into something else, you end up in a weird spot. So I’m getting excited about games that are changing more drastically and not trying to be a spiritual successor to StarCraft. Of course I hope stormgate pulls it off but I’ve come around to being more excited about more experimental and fresh designs.
EPT
