On February 12 2026 18:28 Harris1st wrote: First and foremost you need a campaign, a good story presented with some decent visuals. Almost nobody but the hardest of core RTS players are in it for 1v1 directly from the start. Hell I played RTS games for almost 30 years. Right now I'm trying to get into Zerospace but I can't because I know nothing of the world, the lore, the characters, the units. And I don't want to read endless descriptions. I want them presented to me. Preferably in an interesting way.
MOBA's prove you don't need campaigns. The core gameplay should not require anything more than a simple tutorial and then everything else should be intuitive. The needing a campaign may be correct given how most RTS games are created, but it's a symptom of the genre not innovating.
It is expensive to make a good campaign and I think studios that try to go that directoin will struggle to create something cost-effectively. Zerospace is trying to that, Stormgate, Immortals Gates of Pyre. IMO they will all fail. You can critize the reason being that the campaign wasn't good but it diverts the focus and ressources. AAA companies can do that, not sure about startups.
For startups nail one thing. Make that exciting get rid of all the excessive stuff that adds unneeded complexity but aren't required for the target group.
Battle Aces did actually do some of that - unfrotunately it was still a stressful experience and did everything else the wrong way.
On February 12 2026 18:28 Harris1st wrote: First and foremost you need a campaign, a good story presented with some decent visuals. Almost nobody but the hardest of core RTS players are in it for 1v1 directly from the start. Hell I played RTS games for almost 30 years. Right now I'm trying to get into Zerospace but I can't because I know nothing of the world, the lore, the characters, the units. And I don't want to read endless descriptions. I want them presented to me. Preferably in an interesting way.
MOBA's prove you don't need campaigns. The core gameplay should not require anything more than a simple tutorial and then everything else should be intuitive. The needing a campaign may be correct given how most RTS games are created, but it's a symptom of the genre not innovating.
It is expensive to make a good campaign and I think studios that try to go that directoin will struggle to create something cost-effectively. Zerospace is trying to that, Stormgate, Immortals Gates of Pyre. IMO they will all fail. You can critize the reason being that the campaign wasn't good but it diverts the focus and ressources. AAA companies can do that, not sure about startups.
For startups nail one thing. Make that exciting get rid of all the excessive stuff that adds unneeded complexity but aren't required for the target group.
Battle Aces did actually do some of that - unfrotunately it was still a stressful experience and did everything else the wrong way.
I agree with you. If you are short on budget and want to make a PvP focused RTS then a campaign is a bad usage of resources. Especially if you are into the Live Service idea of games.
If you are short on money and want to make an RTS and make your money back then PvP is a bad usage of resources. At least I don't see any PvP focused RTS make their money back. I like what Homeworld 3 tried with their live service, it didn't work out but the idea was solid. Even the recent addon to Starship Troopers: Terran Command is also a decent try at it. Both going some variant of procedurally generated PvE.
Regardless you need to pull people in and hit that threshold as fast as possible so you can test. Here the problem might be game engines. There aren't that many ready made engines to just plug your game idea into, unless you use SC2/Dota 2 map editors or similar.
On February 12 2026 18:28 Harris1st wrote: First and foremost you need a campaign, a good story presented with some decent visuals. Almost nobody but the hardest of core RTS players are in it for 1v1 directly from the start. Hell I played RTS games for almost 30 years. Right now I'm trying to get into Zerospace but I can't because I know nothing of the world, the lore, the characters, the units. And I don't want to read endless descriptions. I want them presented to me. Preferably in an interesting way.
MOBA's prove you don't need campaigns. The core gameplay should not require anything more than a simple tutorial and then everything else should be intuitive. The needing a campaign may be correct given how most RTS games are created, but it's a symptom of the genre not innovating.
It is expensive to make a good campaign and I think studios that try to go that directoin will struggle to create something cost-effectively. Zerospace is trying to that, Stormgate, Immortals Gates of Pyre. IMO they will all fail. You can critize the reason being that the campaign wasn't good but it diverts the focus and ressources. AAA companies can do that, not sure about startups.
For startups nail one thing. Make that exciting get rid of all the excessive stuff that adds unneeded complexity but aren't required for the target group.
Battle Aces did actually do some of that - unfrotunately it was still a stressful experience and did everything else the wrong way.
Every rule has it's exceptions, though I'm not sure MOBAs are one. The whole genre developed organically, starting with UMS maps in BW and WC3. By the time the standalone Dota hit there were alreay 1000's of players who knew exactly what they were getting into. Later Riot took that same recipe and made its own spin of it -> LoL
It's entirely possible that I'm wrong with my "You need a story and campaign approach" as well. We'll see. I just know that none of the developed games (Battle Aces, Zerospace) are really catching me while on the other hand I played some low budget RTS demo called Space Tales and got immediately hooked.
Even DotA2 and Counter Strike contain a story in the design itself: It's good vs evil.
At least it was in DotA before they removed faction specific heroes and both sides could pick any hero.
Both also include a "this is me" setup. Who wouldn't say it's exciting to play as a Terrorist trying to blow something up or a special forces officer trying to catch Terrorists the GTA police way?
Battle Aces always felt like sending units that are functions instead of units that have character traits. You don't see yourself in the game, so there's also no fantasy of inserting yourself.
On February 12 2026 18:28 Harris1st wrote: First and foremost you need a campaign, a good story presented with some decent visuals. Almost nobody but the hardest of core RTS players are in it for 1v1 directly from the start. Hell I played RTS games for almost 30 years. Right now I'm trying to get into Zerospace but I can't because I know nothing of the world, the lore, the characters, the units. And I don't want to read endless descriptions. I want them presented to me. Preferably in an interesting way.
MOBA's prove you don't need campaigns. The core gameplay should not require anything more than a simple tutorial and then everything else should be intuitive. The needing a campaign may be correct given how most RTS games are created, but it's a symptom of the genre not innovating.
It is expensive to make a good campaign and I think studios that try to go that directoin will struggle to create something cost-effectively. Zerospace is trying to that, Stormgate, Immortals Gates of Pyre. IMO they will all fail. You can critize the reason being that the campaign wasn't good but it diverts the focus and ressources. AAA companies can do that, not sure about startups.
For startups nail one thing. Make that exciting get rid of all the excessive stuff that adds unneeded complexity but aren't required for the target group.
Battle Aces did actually do some of that - unfrotunately it was still a stressful experience and did everything else the wrong way.
Every rule has it's exceptions, though I'm not sure MOBAs are one. The whole genre developed organically, starting with UMS maps in BW and WC3. By the time the standalone Dota hit there were alreay 1000's of players who knew exactly what they were getting into. Later Riot took that same recipe and made its own spin of it -> LoL
It's entirely possible that I'm wrong with my "You need a story and campaign approach" as well. We'll see. I just know that none of the developed games (Battle Aces, Zerospace) are really catching me while on the other hand I played some low budget RTS demo called Space Tales and got immediately hooked.
Agree. I think my take on this: Yes with the "current formula RTS devs is applying" you probably do need an RTS. But I also don't think its cost effective, and I think the mindset need to change. Again David Kims mindset in terms of attempting to streamline the experience to the core parts was correct. He just executed this in the absolute wrong way possible.
I tihnk the goal should be to make an RTS where a new player (with some MOBA background, little to no RTS) can immediately play and be matched up against a similar new player and have fun playing around with the units/attempting some strategies. The initial experience must be intuitive and not punishing. Making small tactical/strategical build errors should be quite forgiving. And the experience of controlling the units must be amazing. Just like when you play an awesome hero in a MOBA game.
If you want to catch the MOBA audience you should go for a WC4 and not SC3 though. Basically build WC3 with fresh graphics and some QoL changes in makro and unit control/ unit AI and voila.
All the attempts I have seen so far were much more in line with SC2 which may be why they failed so hard. Everyone is like "why would I play this instead of SC2" and all devs come up short.
On February 26 2026 17:41 Harris1st wrote: If you want to catch the MOBA audience you should go for a WC4 and not SC3 though. Basically build WC3 with fresh graphics and some QoL changes in makro and unit control/ unit AI and voila.
All the attempts I have seen so far were much more in line with SC2 which may be why they failed so hard. Everyone is like "why would I play this instead of SC2" and all devs come up short.
Good idea, especially since DotA didnt draw the playerbase away from Warcraft 3.
Warcraft was and is the most accessible RTS out there. Normal paced, not too complex in its macro/base building. Unit turn rates, income interest keep things in check.
The irony is that original DotA was even less accessible.You were just thrown into the game, had no idea what hero to play, what build to play, what items to buy, what lane to go. Guides/replays werent a thing, pro scene was as niche as it gets. People are yelling at you for being shit. Custom Hotkeys werent a thing unless you downloaded third party software.
Crazy that people dont see that Warcraft 3 is as "moba" for an RTS as its gets. DotA is basically Warcraft 3 on lanes
On February 26 2026 17:41 Harris1st wrote: If you want to catch the MOBA audience you should go for a WC4 and not SC3 though. Basically build WC3 with fresh graphics and some QoL changes in makro and unit control/ unit AI and voila.
All the attempts I have seen so far were much more in line with SC2 which may be why they failed so hard. Everyone is like "why would I play this instead of SC2" and all devs come up short.
You are thinking Wc3 type RTS = Closer to moba so better at attracting a larger audience.
I am thinking: Higher unit-count RTS has the potential for awesome micro and depth and strategies with high unit counts and well-designed abilities --> Can attract audience that play MOBA's because they like to outplay their opponents.
I think with your mindset - no innovation would eve ever happen. No new genres would be created. Instead, I think you need to look at what the target group truly wants and create an experience that nails that. And I think RTS games have higher potential to nail that. Even if the gameplay itself is different.
On February 26 2026 17:41 Harris1st wrote: If you want to catch the MOBA audience you should go for a WC4 and not SC3 though. Basically build WC3 with fresh graphics and some QoL changes in makro and unit control/ unit AI and voila.
All the attempts I have seen so far were much more in line with SC2 which may be why they failed so hard. Everyone is like "why would I play this instead of SC2" and all devs come up short.
You are thinking Wc3 type RTS = Closer to moba so better at attracting a larger audience.
I am thinking: Higher unit-count RTS has the potential for awesome micro and depth and strategies with high unit counts and well-designed abilities --> Can attract audience that play MOBA's because they like to outplay their opponents.
I think with your mindset - no innovation would eve ever happen. No new genres would be created. Instead, I think you need to look at what the target group truly wants and create an experience that nails that. And I think RTS games have higher potential to nail that. Even if the gameplay itself is different.
Honestly? I don't want or need a ton of innovation. I just need a solid RTS with devs that care and a bunch of players (5k-10k regulars would be nice) that have fun. You are kinda describing BAR with your innovation, I guess High unit counts and micro ...hmm. High unit counts means positioning more important than micro right? This sound more like a global strategy game than classical RTS.
On February 26 2026 17:41 Harris1st wrote: If you want to catch the MOBA audience you should go for a WC4 and not SC3 though. Basically build WC3 with fresh graphics and some QoL changes in makro and unit control/ unit AI and voila.
All the attempts I have seen so far were much more in line with SC2 which may be why they failed so hard. Everyone is like "why would I play this instead of SC2" and all devs come up short.
You are thinking Wc3 type RTS = Closer to moba so better at attracting a larger audience.
I am thinking: Higher unit-count RTS has the potential for awesome micro and depth and strategies with high unit counts and well-designed abilities --> Can attract audience that play MOBA's because they like to outplay their opponents.
I think with your mindset - no innovation would eve ever happen. No new genres would be created. Instead, I think you need to look at what the target group truly wants and create an experience that nails that. And I think RTS games have higher potential to nail that. Even if the gameplay itself is different.
You keep misidentifying the target group.
And you keep treating your view that "moba players like mobas because they like to outplay opponents" as some sort of fact, which clearly is not.
The previous opinion was not against innovation, you can innovate all you want, just drop the RTS tag and you are fine. The problem is that you keep wanting to shove your views into what an RTS is instead of simply coming up with a new name/genre that would fit your needs/wants.
This is a repetitive discussion that has been had multiple times here.
I think that people are trying to make the games backwards now. All this talk of "focus on competitive scene" etc. They all seem to forget most well known titles in the genre didn't really start this way, the competitive scene emerged as a product of simply having a good RTS that people like well enough to take it to multiplayer past the campaign.
When launching a new title IMO it would be best to focus your resources on getting the initial story/lore/characters down. For the multiplayer you can really leave it rather bare-bones and build up later.
For some reason studio's are acting like players are demanding all those extra features for multiplayer and everything. Sure, they want them because they're used to having them in established titles but they don't need them. If the game is good people will play it. All you really need in the beginning is 1v1, 2v2, 3-5 player FFA (which should be rather easy since you kinda already should have those modes for the campaign) and ability to save and view replays. Everything else is superfluous at the start (next thing would be adding a spectator mode and that you can build off of the replay system).
Your primary concern as a developer should be capturing player interest and you get that with good design of your units, characters etc. (what catches people's eye in the first place) then a good story to build emotional connection. Player communities have already shown they can live and thrive without all the bells and whistles for multiplayer and will even go as far as building their own tools if necessary (anyone remember waaghTV for WC3? Anyone watched SC matches on AfreecaTV before streaming was a thing?).
I don't have any issue with battle aces only focusing on PvP side of things, and "dumbing" it down, because it certainly played well, and still had a lot of great RTS concepts like build time, army positioning/micro, counter units, flaking, resource management, scouting etc.
It's kinda weird to me that we don't have a campaign only RTS. That's where they can explore some fun ideas and really pushes things to the extreme.
On February 27 2026 10:09 Manit0u wrote: I think that people are trying to make the games backwards now. All this talk of "focus on competitive scene" etc. They all seem to forget most well known titles in the genre didn't really start this way, the competitive scene emerged as a product of simply having a good RTS that people like well enough to take it to multiplayer past the campaign.
When launching a new title IMO it would be best to focus your resources on getting the initial story/lore/characters down. For the multiplayer you can really leave it rather bare-bones and build up later.
For some reason studio's are acting like players are demanding all those extra features for multiplayer and everything. Sure, they want them because they're used to having them in established titles but they don't need them. If the game is good people will play it. All you really need in the beginning is 1v1, 2v2, 3-5 player FFA (which should be rather easy since you kinda already should have those modes for the campaign) and ability to save and view replays. Everything else is superfluous at the start (next thing would be adding a spectator mode and that you can build off of the replay system).
Your primary concern as a developer should be capturing player interest and you get that with good design of your units, characters etc. (what catches people's eye in the first place) then a good story to build emotional connection. Player communities have already shown they can live and thrive without all the bells and whistles for multiplayer and will even go as far as building their own tools if necessary (anyone remember waaghTV for WC3? Anyone watched SC matches on AfreecaTV before streaming was a thing?).
This is partially Dustin B.'s fault with the way SC2 was showcased and after a while actually developed.
Fully agree with you and its also what was already said before. First a game needs to be good so that people want to play it. If you get a good game that people enjoy, they will want to play with other people. Then they will want to show they are better and play against those same people. Then that will not be enough and they will want to test their might against random strangers on the internet.
That is how it goes. You don't start in the last step.
On February 27 2026 10:39 ETisME wrote: A lot of game comes down to just one good mode.
I don't have any issue with battle aces only focusing on PvP side of things, and "dumbing" it down, because it certainly played well, and still had a lot of great RTS concepts like build time, army positioning/micro, counter units, flaking, resource management, scouting etc.
It's kinda weird to me that we don't have a campaign only RTS. That's where they can explore some fun ideas and really pushes things to the extreme.
It would surprise me a lot if we have more PvP only RTS than campaign only RTS. Starship Troopers: Terran Command and They are Billion are just two examples of this.
On February 26 2026 17:41 Harris1st wrote: If you want to catch the MOBA audience you should go for a WC4 and not SC3 though. Basically build WC3 with fresh graphics and some QoL changes in makro and unit control/ unit AI and voila.
All the attempts I have seen so far were much more in line with SC2 which may be why they failed so hard. Everyone is like "why would I play this instead of SC2" and all devs come up short.
Good idea, especially since DotA didnt draw the playerbase away from Warcraft 3.
Warcraft was and is the most accessible RTS out there. Normal paced, not too complex in its macro/base building. Unit turn rates, income interest keep things in check.
The irony is that original DotA was even less accessible.You were just thrown into the game, had no idea what hero to play, what build to play, what items to buy, what lane to go. Guides/replays werent a thing, pro scene was as niche as it gets. People are yelling at you for being shit. Custom Hotkeys werent a thing unless you downloaded third party software.
Crazy that people dont see that Warcraft 3 is as "moba" for an RTS as its gets. DotA is basically Warcraft 3 on lanes
(Regarding specifically accessibility in WC3 vs 'other RTS')
Ehhh depends on your experiences in RTS imo. Using the Starcrafts as examples, the complexity of a normal RTS is largely in the macro / buildorder / basebuilding side of things, and the actual combat is simple to figure out. All the T1/T1.5 units have relatively straightforward functions and uses, you're not stuck wondering what a marine or medic / medevac does, or what dragoons or hydras do. WC3 to a larger extent has the concept of 'burden of knowledge' as the thing making it inaccessible. Not only are the units themselves more complex, but you've got the entire layer of heroes and items that compound it, leading to a vast array of possibilities you've got to learn over time.
Starcraft, you can push through with macro and have to know about outlying cheese such as DTs or some all-in, but you can still experience success because the core thing is macro, and knowledge of matchups and situations is an efficiency modifier. In WC3 it seems the inverse, where how efficiently you spend your gold is secondary to how well you understand your matchup and strategy. SC2 has the "I got GM using only marines", WC3 has "Here's Grubby beating someone with literally just a Paladin hero"
Tying this back to campaign - imo the WC3 campaign is the better part of the game, but it also does an awful job of preparing you for multiplayer. I don't think that was ever its goal, but it's still worth noting. I think WC3 would be an EVEN BETTER game if it found ways to prepare you for the annoying shit humans or orcs are going to do to you in a 1v1. SC1/2 on the other hand do a pretty reasonable job of teaching you the core tenets of macro and (in sc1s case) basic unit control through the course of their campaign, and those skills translate well into multiplayer. SC2's co-op commander is what pushes it over the edge as #1 'most accessible RTS' imo.
On February 27 2026 10:39 ETisME wrote: A lot of game comes down to just one good mode.
I don't have any issue with battle aces only focusing on PvP side of things, and "dumbing" it down, because it certainly played well, and still had a lot of great RTS concepts like build time, army positioning/micro, counter units, flaking, resource management, scouting etc.
It's kinda weird to me that we don't have a campaign only RTS. That's where they can explore some fun ideas and really pushes things to the extreme.
I know this is not an RTS since it's a turn based strategy game but it really showcases that you don't really need to go above and beyond with some crazy twists and ideas for the story to have a great campaign.
Basically, you can get away with simple, tried and true stories but then it needs to be really tight. If the story is simple but engaging, fits the lore and what's happening in the campaign etc. it will be enough for most people. But you need to nail the basics really well.
It looks like SC2 clone #21513513513. Can the studios please stop with the most generic graphic design ever and everything looking the same? If you showed me this next to StormGate I would have a hard time telling which is which... It's like they're all using the same assets for everything.
EPT
