|
On July 04 2021 22:58 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2021 05:23 NonY wrote:"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player." I mean has anyone ever made an RTS where the fastest player is the best player? Seems like a straw man. I would've thought if that was any game, it's BW, but of course anyone who has followed BW knows that would be an awful description of it. I think probably the two most famous players of all time are boxer and flash, who were both extremely strategic players... Most famous protoss player probably Bisu? For revolutionizing PvZ It just seems weird to make it a goal for competitive play to not require extremely good mechanics and fast play. I think the other new RTS's in development still want that for competitive play and are figuring out ways to make their games more enjoyable for slower players. Maybe they figure RTS players will go to the other new RTS's in development and they're going to try to capture more players from other genres. I think it is a strawman. I think the people arguing that RTS games need to be easier are trying to guide development of a game to solve their own perceived reasons for being bad at the game. Unfortunately, by removing all of the perceived hard parts of the game, you usually remove most of the game entirely.
DOTA (the original USMB) was popular because people liked using heroes but managing all the micro and macro of the game was too dauting.
One of the most common types of games right now are auto-battlers (HS most viewed mode are battlegrounds and duels).
If you check steam the most succesful strategy games that have been released have been 4X games (Hearths of Iron, CIV) and rogue-like base builders (Frostpunk, They are billions, Rimworld).
And thats not even talking about the resurgence of card-games.
If anything TOO SLOW games are way wayyyy more popular in the strategy sphere than TOO FAST ones.
The only thing is that there hasn't been an e-sport made strategy game that has been popular but thinking that it has something to do with complexity is stupid, e-sports happen organically and aren't the only measure for success.
|
So that is... what .....3 new companies, all with ex-Blizz people... all working on new RTS games
I think Blizzard need to be careful down to the road, or they will end up in a new DOTA situation.
|
New RTS games are always welcome in my oppinion. I just hope that at least one will be good.
|
I think the problem with these interviews is that David Kim never talks about how to make a fun multiplayer RTS. An enjoyable game that you and other people would want to play and through that want to watch. And perhaps that isn't the game the studio wants to make. Talking about making the game easier, talking about how blizz veterans are in the company simply points to that all they are interested in is using the pulling power of being Blizzard Veteran (tm) to sell as much as possible without regard or wrestling with whether the game is fun to play or not. Because ultimately the way I see it, Blizzard's failure in SC2 was despite the initial hook of the then stellar Blizzard name and the starcraft IP to gain a huge audience, to make a game fun and interesting enough to continue playing, whilst their competitors in the RTS-like space, League of Legends and Dota2 continue to attract new players and retain older players.
|
I recently went through the new player experience in another really difficult to learn genre, of tactical shooters. I have to say I have a different take now than I did before. If you look at a game like Valorant it’s is brutally hard on new players in general staying true to how csgo plays, small hit boxes lightning reflexes and accuracy being a basic requirement just like macro is in rts. It requires most new players to consistently play aim trainers just to make it to silver. Despite the high barrier to entry it’s hugely popular. New games don’t have to be easy to draw an audience of casual players. They just need to be good and marketed well.
|
Northern Ireland23611 Posts
On July 06 2021 09:50 washikie wrote:
I recently went through the new player experience in another really difficult to learn genre, of tactical shooters. I have to say I have a different take now than I did before. If you look at a game like Valorant it’s is brutally hard on new players in general staying true to how csgo plays, small hit boxes lightning reflexes and accuracy being a basic requirement just like macro is in rts. It requires most new players to consistently play aim trainers just to make it to silver. Despite the high barrier to entry it’s hugely popular. New games don’t have to be easy to draw an audience of casual players. They just need to be good and marketed well.
To me a barrier is to what degree you can just play the game and over time get better, or at least have fun to the point where you maybe start reading up a bit down the line.
Just so happens I’ve followed SC and played intermittently for forever, there’s so much accumulated knowledge there though and it’s not stuff I’ve obtained within the game client. Console CoD way back in the day I got very, very good at just from playing the game.
There’s way, way more could be done in a game like SC to keep things more cohesive. Basic tutorials and content could be embedded in the client, I’m sure pro players would be happy to do mini-guides for various concepts too.
|
On July 06 2021 09:50 washikie wrote:
I recently went through the new player experience in another really difficult to learn genre, of tactical shooters. I have to say I have a different take now than I did before. If you look at a game like Valorant it’s is brutally hard on new players in general staying true to how csgo plays, small hit boxes lightning reflexes and accuracy being a basic requirement just like macro is in rts. It requires most new players to consistently play aim trainers just to make it to silver. Despite the high barrier to entry it’s hugely popular. New games don’t have to be easy to draw an audience of casual players. They just need to be good and marketed well.
Hm i think there is a meaningful difference still, in sc2 as a new player you wouldn't have any baseline expectation at any given game, you'd try and get a hold of the fundamental game mechanics like building workers, adding production, producing army, but nothing in the game makes you get to the fun part, the interaction with your opponent. Also you could lose in 2 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, whatever it is because there are a ton of potential (abusive) possibilities being thrown at you which you have to learn to counter or simply lose then and there.
In a game like valorant (or csgo), you get the fundamental gameplay no matter what skill level you are, the game forces you to experience it. You will play attack vs defender every single round, you will shoot at people and probably use some of your utlity / abilities (valorant does a better job there than csgo)
That any game needs some 'mastery' of fundamentals to get decent at, sure, but what's important is how much fun one can get out of the early learning phase, how much of the gaming experience which is supposed to happen you can go through even on a really low level of skill.
RTS (well the starcraft games are what i truly focus on here) are rather bad at that, sc2 better than bw ofc, but still lightyears away from a lot of other popular games.
That's what some people here don't seem to get, david kim (and the other devs) don't want to reduce mastery, they want to reduce obstacles (to have fun) for new players. Maybe you inherently remove some mastery by doing that, but honestly at some point this is almost meaningless, what matters is that the game is fundamentally fun for all kinds of players, but probably most importantly for players who don't play it hours and hours every day to master it, that's a small % of the playerbase. It should give the opportunity for these to exist, but you don't need bw gamedesign, or even sc2 gamedesign for that, there are lots and lots of opportunities to achieve depth.
|
On July 07 2021 00:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2021 09:50 washikie wrote:
I recently went through the new player experience in another really difficult to learn genre, of tactical shooters. I have to say I have a different take now than I did before. If you look at a game like Valorant it’s is brutally hard on new players in general staying true to how csgo plays, small hit boxes lightning reflexes and accuracy being a basic requirement just like macro is in rts. It requires most new players to consistently play aim trainers just to make it to silver. Despite the high barrier to entry it’s hugely popular. New games don’t have to be easy to draw an audience of casual players. They just need to be good and marketed well. Hm i think there is a meaningful difference still, in sc2 as a new player you wouldn't have any baseline expectation at any given game, you'd try and get a hold of the fundamental game mechanics like building workers, adding production, producing army, but nothing in the game makes you get to the fun part, the interaction with your opponent. Also you could lose in 2 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, whatever it is because there are a ton of potential (abusive) possibilities being thrown at you which you have to learn to counter or simply lose then and there. In a game like valorant (or csgo), you get the fundamental gameplay no matter what skill level you are, the game forces you to experience it. You will play attack vs defender every single round, you will shoot at people and probably use some of your utlity / abilities (valorant does a better job there than csgo) That any game needs some 'mastery' of fundamentals to get decent at, sure, but what's important is how much fun one can get out of the early learning phase, how much of the gaming experience which is supposed to happen you can go through even on a really low level of skill. RTS (well the starcraft games are what i truly focus on here) are rather bad at that, sc2 better than bw ofc, but still lightyears away from a lot of other popular games. That's what some people here don't seem to get, david kim (and the other devs) don't want to reduce mastery, they want to reduce obstacles (to have fun) for new players. Maybe you inherently remove some mastery by doing that, but honestly at some point this is almost meaningless, what matters is that the game is fundamentally fun for all kinds of players, but probably most importantly for players who don't play it hours and hours every day to master it, that's a small % of the playerbase. It should give the opportunity for these to exist, but you don't need bw gamedesign, or even sc2 gamedesign for that, there are lots and lots of opportunities to achieve depth.
How much easier do you actually think the game can be to play? Lets pretend they are trying to apply your suggestion of removing obstacles for new players in sc2, Could you provide some examples of tweaks or changes? What does it look like? What are some of these obstacles in sc2 that make the game harder to play for new players getting in the game?
"what matters is that the game is fundamentally fun for all kinds of players, but probably most importantly for players who don't play it hours and hours every day to master it, that's a small % of the playerbase." - This is what lower leagues are for, people who don't play often who haven't fully mastered game. They still get to have fun because they are playing against people of their skill level.
|
I mean that totally depends on what the game they are trying to develop looks like, you cannot just change a few things about sc2 in particular without changing the whole game. For example, if you wanna make the game 'easier' mechanically, it probably needs to have more opportunities on the strategic side of things to make up for that. That's part of why mobas still work so well, especially dota.
I am sure whatever game designers come up with, there will be a ton of hardcore starcraft fans who won't like it, just like bw players didn't like a lot of the changes in sc2. Personally i am not too concerned with that, if the game is good in its own right i couldn't care less if it removes some of the macro aspects and differentiators for example, i don't think that adding more production and hitting every cycle perfectly is necessarily key to a great rts experience, anything which makes the pvp interactions fun and meaningful is imo more important than making sure people win because they have a few more units.
"what matters is that the game is fundamentally fun for all kinds of players, but probably most importantly for players who don't play it hours and hours every day to master it, that's a small % of the playerbase." - This is what lower leagues are for, people who don't play often who haven't fully mastered game. They still get to have fun because they are playing against people of their skill level.
That's a bad take, one doesn't automatically have fun just because the game is 'fair' and produces 50% winrate. I think this is actually by far starcraft's biggest weakness, making people have fun on low skill levels in its standard pvp setting. Why? Because it doesn't create interactions between the players in nearly the same way other games do, as i said above, in valorant or csgo you still basically have the same core gameplay as on high lvl, you attack and defend the sites which inherently makes you interact with your enemies every single round, every game. There are clear expectations and results.
In starcraft that's not the case at all, usually new players won't get to experience fun aspects of starcraft from the get to, and even worse if they try and do, that's usually detrimental for their gameplay, if you wanna micro your units, if you wanna attack the opponent and do stuff, your macro will fail and you'll most likely lose.
This is even more apparent in bw ofc, how many games have i played where i basically don't interact with the opponent on any meaningful level beyond a clicks and win because i had a better economy and more macro power.
These are imo problems of rts games and very difficult to solve in a way which makes sense for new players + people who like rts right now, i wonder if anyone will do it well or not.
|
On July 07 2021 02:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I mean that totally depends on what the game they are trying to develop looks like, you cannot just change a few things about sc2 in particular without changing the whole game. For example, if you wanna make the game 'easier' mechanically, it probably needs to have more opportunities on the strategic side of things to make up for that. That's part of why mobas still work so well, especially dota.
I am sure whatever game designers come up with, there will be a ton of hardcore starcraft fans who won't like it, just like bw players didn't like a lot of the changes in sc2. Personally i am not too concerned with that, if the game is good in its own right i couldn't care less if it removes some of the macro aspects and differentiators for example, i don't think that adding more production and hitting every cycle perfectly is necessarily key to a great rts experience, anything which makes the pvp interactions fun and meaningful is imo more important than making sure people win because they have a few more units.
There must be something that sparks the "make the game easier to play", What is it about sc2 that makes it so hard to play? They've given players every hot key, they allow players to customize every single hotkey to make it more comfortable for keystroking, they allow players to put as many units and/or structures on a single hotkey. Players can even tab between the units or structures on a single hotkey. Players have access to guides/builds/streams/replays from top players. Players have access to plenty of knowledge. Where is this idea coming from that the game needs to be made easier? There must be something in the current existence of the state of sc2 that suggests that idea to you.
You keep comparing the game the csgo or valorant, Lets stay on topic of RTS and more specifically sc2, What is it about sc2 that has given you the idea that RTS games need to be made easier?
|
If you cannot deal with more absract thoughts you won't be happy talking to me in particular here, i think trying to pin point what exactly could be done to sc2 is a totally flawed and useless thought experiment. They won't make a different version of sc2 (and blizzard won't either), they'll make a new game from the ground up. I and others in this thread (plus the quotes of the devs) already gave some thoughts where a new game could do better, i personally used other games to showcase it more clearly.
If you don't wanna engage that, that's fine, but don't pretend there is nothing to talk about just because one doesn't name very specific things (though it's not even that unspecific, could be a lot more abstract)
|
On July 07 2021 02:50 The_Red_Viper wrote:
If you cannot deal with more absract thoughts you won't be happy talking to me in particular here, i think trying to pin point what exactly could be done to sc2 is a totally flawed and useless thought experiment. They won't make a different version of sc2, they'll make a new game from the ground up. I and others in this thread (plus the quotes of the devs) already gave some thoughts where a new game could do better, i personally used other games to showcase it more clearly.
I'm not asking what is wrong with sc2, but based off what you say something about sc2 has clearly given you the idea that "the game needs to be made easier" for new players. What is it about the game that you think makes it too hard for new players that gives you the idea that it should be made easier. Be specific. What makes you think that? Putting this information out in the open can possibly help developers who are working on new rts games. You can't expect people to get an idea of what you are talking about if you aren't going to expand on it in detail, this is why we need specifics.
|
I already talked about that, go back and read my posts if you really want to know. I'll gladly try and elaborate if something isn't clear, but to me it seems like you just ignore things and ask things which were already stated, and not just from me.
|
On July 07 2021 02:56 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I already talked about that, go back and read my posts.
I have read your posts multiple times and everything you've said is rather vague hence why i'm asking for specifics. Help others understand what you are thinking, your thought process and how you arrived to your conclusion that the game needs to be made easier for new players.
|
This is silly and i'll ignore you from now on if you just keep posting the exact same thing, as i said, if you cannot work with somewhat abstract thoughts (which are not even really abstract), i cannot help you, i won't try and specify which very specific aspect of sc2 is too challenging for new players, because ultimately that's irrelevant, what's relevant is how these things interact and what the result of them is, which is what i tried to address (and also what the devs seem to want to address)
I am not a game dev, and even for game devs these problems are difficult to find solutions for, evidently, otherwise there would be more hope in 'bigger' pvp rts games.
|
Northern Ireland23611 Posts
On July 07 2021 02:55 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2021 02:50 The_Red_Viper wrote:
If you cannot deal with more absract thoughts you won't be happy talking to me in particular here, i think trying to pin point what exactly could be done to sc2 is a totally flawed and useless thought experiment. They won't make a different version of sc2, they'll make a new game from the ground up. I and others in this thread (plus the quotes of the devs) already gave some thoughts where a new game could do better, i personally used other games to showcase it more clearly. I'm not asking what is wrong with sc2, but based off what you say something about sc2 has clearly given you the idea that "the game needs to be made easier" for new players. What is it about the game that you think makes it too hard for new players that gives you the idea that it should be made easier. Be specific. What makes you think that? Putting this information out in the open can possibly help developers who are working on new rts games. You can't expect people to get an idea of what you are talking about if you aren't going to expand on it in detail, this is why we need specifics.
It’s extremely fast, in a sense that you can be macroing up for minutes with no action, miss a mine drop or whatever and you’re basically dead. So you go from minutes of basically nothing to losing, very quickly in a way that doesn’t happen in all other games.
Neither easier = fun or harder = fun are particularly useful things to consider, IMO anyway. Are certain interactions engaging, varied and keep one coming back for more?
I agree with what Red Viper’s saying in abstract ways.
We all want a particular type of game, there’s a tendency to generalise one’s opinion and make out it’s a wider held one without much evidence.
Personally I like the macro and mechanical element of games like SC2. If they’re simplified I reserve judgement to see what’s stuck in their place.
|
Ok so all the information i've gathered here is basically "the next rts game should be made easier just because". Not you or any rts devs have been specific on why they think it needs to be made easier. All I've read is "we want this game to appeal to a broad audience". If their goal is to basically make a reskin of the AOE games with different units, go for it. But that isn't going to appeal to a broad audience or become popular.
I suppose I will have to take the lead and share some of MY thoughts in specific since you won't.
One thing i've seen several players mention in the past is remove macro mechanics as a way to make things easier. One thing they need to understand is that the macro mechanics are there to provide variety, solutions and identity to each race. So i'd like to talk about that.
For example:
Zerg: The Queen
-You can choose to boost your macro for a given situation in the game
-You can choose to boost your map presence through spreading creep to prepare for later engagements
-You can choose to hold energy for heals for later engagements
Terran: The orbital command
-You can choose to boost your economy to focus more on producing units
-You can choose to use the energy to gain intel on what the opponent is doing in the form of scans and at times use the scan to gain intel for making a strategic decision on the map or for engaging
-You can choose to save energy for scans in case of invisible units
-If worse comes to worse, you can use the energy for a supply drop to get you out of a supply block during a key moment of the game where you absolutely need to be producing units
Protoss: Nexus energy
-Chronoboost, you can use this to plan build timings, early rushes or even focus on economy. It can also get you out of a bind if you need a specific earlier than you thought so you chronoboost it out
-Recall, A failsafe for defense or an emergency escape for your army when engaging at inopportune times
-Battery overcharge- A defensive "no" button for stopping timings or aggression
Now if we were to remove these mechanics entirely, every race would lose their identity, every race would lose options to adapt to certain situations and it would provide fewer avenues for different strategies across the board. Yes this would make the game simpler or easier to play since you would be required to do less, HOWEVER, This also removes several layers of strategic depth from the game resulting in a simple more boring game to play. That game specifically turns into a microbattles map, A version of RTS that removes most layers of strategy entirely that players already have access to, it already exists if that is what some players want. It's no longer an rts and just a fighting game with units. It would basically be taking a step backwards in all aspects. I bet if blizzard were to remove these mechanics like some have suggested, players would be asking to have these put back in within no time at all because they generally improve gameplay rather than hinder someone's ability to enjoy the game.
|
On July 07 2021 03:26 ReachTheSky wrote:
Ok so all the information i've gathered here is basically "the next rts game should be made easier just because". Not you or any rts devs have been specific on why they think it needs to be made easier. All I've read is "we want this game to appeal to a broad audience". If their goal is to basically make a reskin of the AOE games with different units, go for it. But that isn't going to appeal to a broad audience or become popular.
I suppose I will have to take the lead and share some of MY thoughts in specific since you won't.
One thing i've seen several players mention in the past is remove macro mechanics as a way to make things easier. One thing they need to understand is that the macro mechanics are there to provide variety, solutions and identity to each race. So i'd like to talk about that.
For example:
Zerg: The Queen
-You can choose to boost your macro for a given situation in the game
-You can choose to boost your map presence through spreading creep to prepare for later engagements
-You can choose to hold energy for heals for later engagements
Terran: The orbital command
-You can choose to boost your economy to focus more on producing units
-You can choose to use the energy to gain intel on what the opponent is doing in the form of scans and at times use the scan to gain intel for making a strategic decision on the map or for engaging
-You can choose to save energy for scans in case of invisible units
-If worse comes to worse, you can use the energy for a supply drop to get you out of a supply block during a key moment of the game where you absolutely need to be producing units
Protoss: Nexus energy
-Chronoboost, you can use this to plan build timings, early rushes or even focus on economy. It can also get you out of a bind if you need a specific earlier than you thought so you chronoboost it out
-Recall, A failsafe for defense or an emergency escape for your army when engaging at inopportune times
-Battery overcharge- A defensive "no" button for stopping timings or aggression
Now if we were to remove these mechanics entirely, every race would lose their identity, every race would lose options to adapt to certain situations and it would provide fewer avenues for different strategies across the board. Yes this would make the game simpler or easier to play since you would be required to do less, HOWEVER, This also removes several layers of strategic depth from the game resulting in a simple more boring game to play. That game specifically turns into a microbattles map, A version of RTS that removes most layers of strategy entirely that players already have access to, it already exists if that is what some players want. It's no longer an rts and just a fighting game with units. It would basically be taking a step backwards in all aspects. I bet if blizzard were to remove these mechanics like some have suggested, players would be asking to have these put back in within no time at all because they generally improve gameplay rather than hinder someone's ability to enjoy the game.
I guess I understand what the "problem" is.
There is a discrepancy about the meaning / context to the term "macro mechanics".
If you look at the what you have written in your post, you will find a keyword "choice".
This is not what other people disagree about at all, a game without choice is never going to be a strategy game.
What people talking about simplify the macro mechanics is to take away the repetitive action that stop causal player from "playing the game". One theoretical example can be: if the requirement of playing football (soccer if you are american) is that you have to be able to run 100 meter within 11 second, then player will have to training very hard on running before they can even touch the ball. This will just put people off trying to play football. This is the idea behind why developer want to find ways to make it "easier" for the causal players.
It is really down to the execution of individual game / developer to find a way to "lower the skill floor" and "keep the skill ceiling". Not everything that "lower the skill floor" have to be detrimental to "skill ceiling". Just an example, addition of whole army selection hotkey did "lower the skill floor", but it really did not do much in terms of "lower the skill ceiling" in SC2.
On a separate note, the problem of giving example is that there is always (huge) possibility of focusing the discussion on the specific example rather than the idea (the idea is what should be discussed), then the discussion is more likely than not go off the rail and become irrelevant to the idea needed to be discussed.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2021 03:18 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2021 02:55 ReachTheSky wrote:On July 07 2021 02:50 The_Red_Viper wrote:
If you cannot deal with more absract thoughts you won't be happy talking to me in particular here, i think trying to pin point what exactly could be done to sc2 is a totally flawed and useless thought experiment. They won't make a different version of sc2, they'll make a new game from the ground up. I and others in this thread (plus the quotes of the devs) already gave some thoughts where a new game could do better, i personally used other games to showcase it more clearly. I'm not asking what is wrong with sc2, but based off what you say something about sc2 has clearly given you the idea that "the game needs to be made easier" for new players. What is it about the game that you think makes it too hard for new players that gives you the idea that it should be made easier. Be specific. What makes you think that? Putting this information out in the open can possibly help developers who are working on new rts games. You can't expect people to get an idea of what you are talking about if you aren't going to expand on it in detail, this is why we need specifics. It’s extremely fast, in a sense that you can be macroing up for minutes with no action, miss a mine drop or whatever and you’re basically dead. So you go from minutes of basically nothing to losing, very quickly in a way that doesn’t happen in all other games. Neither easier = fun or harder = fun are particularly useful things to consider, IMO anyway. Are certain interactions engaging, varied and keep one coming back for more? I agree with what Red Viper’s saying in abstract ways. We all want a particular type of game, there’s a tendency to generalise one’s opinion and make out it’s a wider held one without much evidence. Personally I like the macro and mechanical element of games like SC2. If they’re simplified I reserve judgement to see what’s stuck in their place.
Sticking with my Valorant comparison i would say that game is far more brutally punishing to noobs. Each round a player can be wiped out almost instantly and have to sit the whole round out due to a well placed head shot. I have seen new players who go 0 kills and 20 deaths spend a whole game hardly playing the game. Compare that to sc2 We’re as outside of dts when you have zero detection it’s rare for a harassment unit to do so much damage that the game is instantly over, it might put you very behind but it does not outright end the game.
Allins and cheese on the other hand can be brutally hard on new players. I do think one way to create a better new player experience is to make very early aggression weaker, or at least more about getting an Econ advantage then outright ending the game. When I tried Aoe2 one thing that struck me is how much less early game cheese there is, outside of tower rushes there are very few early attacks that are as strong as the huge variety of one base allins in sc2. This reduces barrier to entry because new players usually get to execute their early game build without being run over by their opponent.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 07 2021 03:26 ReachTheSky wrote:
Ok so all the information i've gathered here is basically "the next rts game should be made easier just because". Not you or any rts devs have been specific on why they think it needs to be made easier. All I've read is "we want this game to appeal to a broad audience". If their goal is to basically make a reskin of the AOE games with different units, go for it. But that isn't going to appeal to a broad audience or become popular.
I suppose I will have to take the lead and share some of MY thoughts in specific since you won't.
One thing I've seen several players mention in the past is remove macro mechanics as a way to make things easier. One thing they need to understand is that the macro mechanics are there to provide variety, solutions and identity to each race. So i'd like to talk about that.
For example:
Zerg: The Queen
-You can choose to boost your macro for a given situation in the game
-You can choose to boost your map presence through spreading creep to prepare for later engagements
-You can choose to hold energy for heals for later engagements
Terran: The orbital command
-You can choose to boost your economy to focus more on producing units
-You can choose to use the energy to gain intel on what the opponent is doing in the form of scans and at times use the scan to gain intel for making a strategic decision on the map or for engaging
-You can choose to save energy for scans in case of invisible units
-If worse comes to worse, you can use the energy for a supply drop to get you out of a supply block during a key moment of the game where you absolutely need to be producing units
Protoss: Nexus energy
-Chronoboost, you can use this to plan build timings, early rushes or even focus on economy. It can also get you out of a bind if you need a specific earlier than you thought so you chronoboost it out
-Recall, A failsafe for defense or an emergency escape for your army when engaging at inopportune times
-Battery overcharge- A defensive "no" button for stopping timings or aggression
Now if we were to remove these mechanics entirely, every race would lose their identity, every race would lose options to adapt to certain situations and it would provide fewer avenues for different strategies across the board. Yes this would make the game simpler or easier to play since you would be required to do less, HOWEVER, This also removes several layers of strategic depth from the game resulting in a simple more boring game to play. That game specifically turns into a microbattles map, A version of RTS that removes most layers of strategy entirely that players already have access to, it already exists if that is what some players want. It's no longer an rts and just a fighting game with units. It would basically be taking a step backwards in all aspects. I bet if blizzard were to remove these mechanics like some have suggested, players would be asking to have these put back in within no time at all because they generally improve gameplay rather than hinder someone's ability to enjoy the game.
I think you can have very distinct faction identity within macro mechanics without having them being as demanding as sc2. One of my favorite rts’s of all time was red alert 3. It was not nearly as hard to play decently as sc2. A big reason for this is that their is no worker production. Every resource node requires a mining building and one harvester. Yet every factions mining was very different and made the factions still feel very distinct. Mainly due to the asymmetrical tech trees and building mechanics of each faction.
Soviet’s had the best ability to acquire new mining locations since they had cranes that could double as a base constructor, and their tech was tied to buildings unlocking tiers and allied globally this made them play like Zerg where they would try to devour the map.
Empire had a building mechanic where they made individual units that deployed into buildings this meant they could immediately grab far away bases, but these units were more expensive this meant they usually had to grow more slowly than Soviet’s but still could get a pretty decent economy latter on, kind of like Protoss. Their tech was unlocked on a per building bases via an upgrade, a little bit like tech labs if they had tiers. This meant that you could get to the highest tier units really fast but you rarely could make a lot of them.
Allies could build like Soviet’s to some extent but they had to unlock tech tiers from a central building either a deployed builder or their construction vehicle(town hall building) since the deployed builders were easily sniped this usually meant they would lock down a small corner of the map fast but have to invest a lot into deployed builders to get any more eco. This generally made them play like Terran where you control a smaller portion of the map but have more efficient early and mid game units that you get to quickly and then try to trade out efficiently.
All this variety was created with systems that are a lot simpler mechanically for new players than macro in sc2.
Macro in c&c style games is also just easier in general than sc2. In sc2 queuing up units is either not possible (zerg/toss warpins) or very bad since you spend money upfront on units and then they get quests before your actually making them. In c&c games instead what you do is you que up everything, buildings, units, etc. then as you have money that money goes into building the unit until it is payed for and produced.
This make good macro more about balancing the needs of your base army and tech to spend your money without overspending so you cant produce smoothly. It’s hard but it’s less mechanical than sc2 where you have to have high apm to macro well in the mid and late game. This reduced burden makes it easier for players but it did not feel bad and ra3 still felt very skillful both in terms of macro and micro. Since macro was easier the game became more about fights and micro which at a high level were almost constant.
Was it better than sc2s system not necessarily macro in sc2 is a core part of the game. Part of the strategy of the game is how you distribute your apm and its what makes both bw and sc2 such good esports is that the game is so hard to play. you will even see pros sometimes supply block if they get stretched to thin.
Simpler macro is not necessarily better either after ra3 ea made c&c 4 which really striped down the macro mechanics of the game and made it play more like a moba rts hybrid. This game had a huge hype build up going into it but completely failed and killed my favorite video game franchise. There's simplifying a mechanic so noobs can do it, than theres removing mechanics that are core to rts and loosing your whole player base. C&C went to far and flopped as a result.
However I don’t think it’s a good argument that a 3 faction. Rts must have hard macro mechanics to be interesting. Their are different viable systems that may not have been tried yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
