|
On April 12 2024 19:28 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 05:19 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 11 2024 16:54 Miragee wrote:On April 11 2024 06:01 Fleetfeet wrote:
It isn't because Dota, Valorant, autochess, csgo, fortnite, etcetcetc don't support 1v1, it's because none of those are designed from the ground up as 1v1 games, because 1v1 games aren't as fun.
That said, again the endpoint JUST needs to be a good game. Having 1v1 be the main focus of the game doesn't preclude it from being a good game, I just think it's shooting yourself in the foot a bit, like trying to make a good game that's also an arena shooter in 2024 (sorry WombaT :D) I honestely believe that "1v1 games aren't as fun is" is a false statement. In competitive team games you won't feel (solely) responsible for your losses and I think that's one main factor why these games you mention are generally more popular. The other one is that it's fun to play with friends, almost regardless of how good the game actually is. What I mean is that technically a 1v1 game can be more fun but it's being overridden by people drawing so much enjoyment from interacting with friends. For your second statement: Dusk came out some time ago and it's a great game. Not an arena shooter but the gameplay feels like one. It's smooth and responsive as fuck, super fun. They could as well add an arena mode with that engine to boot. And I'm not even an Arena Shooter fan. The only Arena Shooter I played more than a couple of hours was UT 2004. I hear you, but this does sound a lot like there's a lot of conditions to make 1v1 games as fun. 1v1 is MORE fun if you only have one friend to play with and no other humans exist, but I wasn't really referring to 1v1 in a vacuum vs team games in a vacuum. It's certainly entirely possible that a 1v1 game could be designed and be objectively more fun than a team game, but if we consider that playtime/playerbase probably correlates to fun significantly, then it seems safe to say team games are 'more fun', at least in the current climate. In a general sense I do agree that a 1v1 game could be more fun (Chess and GO, I'm looking at you!) but I don't think that's something I see happening soon in video game land. (The arena shooter thing was mostly a jab at WombaT, I know very little about that genre.) @Spartak "Anymore" is generous. I don't think conversing with JimmyRaynor is producive, he kind of just spews nonsense that isn't worth engaging. Yeah, I agree. I reality there is a lot more to it than just a good game. The social components (interaction with friends, team strategy and so on) are extremely important. Hell, IRL I've chosen to pursue team sports basically my entire life and will continue to do so. I just wanted to rebut that 1v1 cannot be better games or successful but I think we are on the same page here. I know the arena shooter thing was a jab at Wombat.  However, I felt like it was also a valid argument to have because we don't have any popular new ones right now and I'm curious as to why. I feel they have everything that a game these days needs: intuitive, fun and satisfying gameplay, not much downtime after "losses" and easily playable for casuals even if the skill ceiling is incredibly high. I think if you add/focus on some different modes such as FFA and team arena in addition to 1v1 as well as a really smooth/responsive engine that just _feels_ good to move in, there is a lot of potential. I just don't see companies approach this at all. I feel like after failures such as UT3 those games died in the grand scheme, even though the reason for the failure was not based on interest but because these new iterations, instead of delivering improvements, actually made things worse. I.e. UT3 just felt worse to play than UT2004 because it was so heavy-handed. Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 12:07 KingzTig wrote:On April 11 2024 21:17 Hider wrote:On April 11 2024 18:57 KingzTig wrote:
Gate of pyre (also I had no idea the Dev is from starbow till today) imo has the most innovative approach to the genre so far, that along with zerospace are way beyond what stormgate is experimenting with the formula Where do you think Gates of Pyre is innovating? Because the problem I have with both of those is that even though I can see that Zerospace is trying a few more things than Stormgate it still doesn't look particularly amazing. Do you think you could make a highlight clips of a few minutes, send that to non RTS gamers and they would be really interested to try it out? And if they try it out, would a large percentage of them keep playing? In contrast I remember sending the famous Zed vs Zed Faker vs Ryu outplay from 2023 to multiple Sc2 players who thought it looked awesome and which caused them to try out LOL. For Sc2, I think moments like Infestor burrow --> unborrow fungal is some of the closest we get to that. Or perhaps by psi storm drops, Nuke etc. Or even Marine splitting, multiple drops (although slighltly more complex). There are ways in which you can sell the "highlights of Sc2" to MOBA players. (the bigger problem Sc2 has as previously mentioned is that you can't even attempt to those things as a beginner) FanHots has been streaming zerospace (his main game is heroes of the storm), some in his chat mentioned they even prefer it over hots. As for gates of pyres, they are doing a lot to remove chores and more automate the macro side. Not that macro isn't important, but unit production building serve as a supply building is a great start. And you are able to build multiple units in one building, making it much easier for defence. I think that is what we need to have precisely better micro and more challenging micro moments even. I would definitely agree starcraft still has the best units for sure, but I don't think other games won't find their audience. In Zerospace, you have super units including one that nuke on death. Terror tank always get all the attention in the engagement etc. Some of the unit comp are pretty cool. These are great start imo. My biggest complaint to SG will always be its unit design. It's just so blend even with supposively more interesting upgrade design. I still don't get why people think it's necessary to move away from macro to enable more micro. It just targets different audiences and people who want that do have MOBAs. Some recent RTS's focussed almost entirely on macro are very popular. To me it looks like people see the "new player" looking at BW only to find it too daunting to try and conclude that reducing the amount of macro must be the key to attract those players. However, I think there are other ways (e.g. social components) and a lot of those players won't be attracted regardless of what you do.
Macro cycle is a chore, I am teaching my partner to start sc2 (she has moba background) and she finds that part extremely unfun.
And it’s not like with less macro, there’s less strategy behind it, there’s still build order, building placement is still important, expanding etc
I personally absolutely agree with more simplified macro cycle, and easier to control units, to focus more on engagements, positioning and strategies.
I get BW crowd might not like hearing this but BW is hard and cumbersome, it is definitely driving new players away, and we don’t have a generation of RTS players that can transition into a hard RTS.
just wondering what is the recent popular RTS you are talking about? BAR?
|
|
|
On April 12 2024 06:04 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 03:59 Fango wrote:
Good discussion between Art and Nony, anyone who watched that and took away that those guys believe the game is doomed needs help. Although I do think that there's a good chance much of what they discussed could be irrelevant by the next beta test.
I agree with their points on Inf vs Van, with Inf having limited micro potential aand being all setup, the endgame being very Van favoured etc. All true but will change with literally any new units or tweaks.
As for upgrades, I really don't think generic attack/armour upgrades are as fun as people make them out to be. Outside of pros hitting timings, nobody real cares about them. 99% of players will get them just because they have to for their army to be good.
Sure artosis is right in saying they help balance tier 3 units and put a delay until they're good (3-3 marines will shred 0-0 carriers for example) but you can also just make tier 3 units more expensive or whatever.
I feel this is another case of people will criticise anything Stormgate does different to SC2. Yet had they added generic upgrades, people would say this game is basically just SC2 again (they already do). I was initially against ups getting pulled out, but some folks pointed out that them not being there makes tech switching much more viable, so in theory I’m somewhat placated depending on how the rest of the game ships up. Split upgrades do kind of make certain switches not viable in SC2 past a certain point. And if you do some sort of unified general upgrades it’s not like it adds a huge amount of strategic depth to have something that’s generally always beneficial to obtain
More I think about it I actually think sc2 without upgrades could be interesting, things like mech/bio switches, zergs being able to switch from roachhydra to lingbane at any point. The only problem would be that skytoss and BC switches would be imba, but they aren't a thing (yet) in Stormgate
Plus Van already have veterancy, so whenever they do reach tier 3 units they still won't be as strong as any tier 1 that's been around for a while.
As for just adding a flat attack/armour upgrade for the entire race. I don't really see how that creates better gameplay. It would be cool if it's seriously expensive or can only be obtained from creeps.
|
On April 12 2024 20:03 KingzTig wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 19:28 Miragee wrote:On April 12 2024 05:19 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 11 2024 16:54 Miragee wrote:On April 11 2024 06:01 Fleetfeet wrote:
It isn't because Dota, Valorant, autochess, csgo, fortnite, etcetcetc don't support 1v1, it's because none of those are designed from the ground up as 1v1 games, because 1v1 games aren't as fun.
That said, again the endpoint JUST needs to be a good game. Having 1v1 be the main focus of the game doesn't preclude it from being a good game, I just think it's shooting yourself in the foot a bit, like trying to make a good game that's also an arena shooter in 2024 (sorry WombaT :D) I honestely believe that "1v1 games aren't as fun is" is a false statement. In competitive team games you won't feel (solely) responsible for your losses and I think that's one main factor why these games you mention are generally more popular. The other one is that it's fun to play with friends, almost regardless of how good the game actually is. What I mean is that technically a 1v1 game can be more fun but it's being overridden by people drawing so much enjoyment from interacting with friends. For your second statement: Dusk came out some time ago and it's a great game. Not an arena shooter but the gameplay feels like one. It's smooth and responsive as fuck, super fun. They could as well add an arena mode with that engine to boot. And I'm not even an Arena Shooter fan. The only Arena Shooter I played more than a couple of hours was UT 2004. I hear you, but this does sound a lot like there's a lot of conditions to make 1v1 games as fun. 1v1 is MORE fun if you only have one friend to play with and no other humans exist, but I wasn't really referring to 1v1 in a vacuum vs team games in a vacuum. It's certainly entirely possible that a 1v1 game could be designed and be objectively more fun than a team game, but if we consider that playtime/playerbase probably correlates to fun significantly, then it seems safe to say team games are 'more fun', at least in the current climate. In a general sense I do agree that a 1v1 game could be more fun (Chess and GO, I'm looking at you!) but I don't think that's something I see happening soon in video game land. (The arena shooter thing was mostly a jab at WombaT, I know very little about that genre.) @Spartak "Anymore" is generous. I don't think conversing with JimmyRaynor is producive, he kind of just spews nonsense that isn't worth engaging. Yeah, I agree. I reality there is a lot more to it than just a good game. The social components (interaction with friends, team strategy and so on) are extremely important. Hell, IRL I've chosen to pursue team sports basically my entire life and will continue to do so. I just wanted to rebut that 1v1 cannot be better games or successful but I think we are on the same page here. I know the arena shooter thing was a jab at Wombat. However, I felt like it was also a valid argument to have because we don't have any popular new ones right now and I'm curious as to why. I feel they have everything that a game these days needs: intuitive, fun and satisfying gameplay, not much downtime after "losses" and easily playable for casuals even if the skill ceiling is incredibly high. I think if you add/focus on some different modes such as FFA and team arena in addition to 1v1 as well as a really smooth/responsive engine that just _feels_ good to move in, there is a lot of potential. I just don't see companies approach this at all. I feel like after failures such as UT3 those games died in the grand scheme, even though the reason for the failure was not based on interest but because these new iterations, instead of delivering improvements, actually made things worse. I.e. UT3 just felt worse to play than UT2004 because it was so heavy-handed. On April 12 2024 12:07 KingzTig wrote:On April 11 2024 21:17 Hider wrote:On April 11 2024 18:57 KingzTig wrote:
Gate of pyre (also I had no idea the Dev is from starbow till today) imo has the most innovative approach to the genre so far, that along with zerospace are way beyond what stormgate is experimenting with the formula Where do you think Gates of Pyre is innovating? Because the problem I have with both of those is that even though I can see that Zerospace is trying a few more things than Stormgate it still doesn't look particularly amazing. Do you think you could make a highlight clips of a few minutes, send that to non RTS gamers and they would be really interested to try it out? And if they try it out, would a large percentage of them keep playing? In contrast I remember sending the famous Zed vs Zed Faker vs Ryu outplay from 2023 to multiple Sc2 players who thought it looked awesome and which caused them to try out LOL. For Sc2, I think moments like Infestor burrow --> unborrow fungal is some of the closest we get to that. Or perhaps by psi storm drops, Nuke etc. Or even Marine splitting, multiple drops (although slighltly more complex). There are ways in which you can sell the "highlights of Sc2" to MOBA players. (the bigger problem Sc2 has as previously mentioned is that you can't even attempt to those things as a beginner) FanHots has been streaming zerospace (his main game is heroes of the storm), some in his chat mentioned they even prefer it over hots. As for gates of pyres, they are doing a lot to remove chores and more automate the macro side. Not that macro isn't important, but unit production building serve as a supply building is a great start. And you are able to build multiple units in one building, making it much easier for defence. I think that is what we need to have precisely better micro and more challenging micro moments even. I would definitely agree starcraft still has the best units for sure, but I don't think other games won't find their audience. In Zerospace, you have super units including one that nuke on death. Terror tank always get all the attention in the engagement etc. Some of the unit comp are pretty cool. These are great start imo. My biggest complaint to SG will always be its unit design. It's just so blend even with supposively more interesting upgrade design. I still don't get why people think it's necessary to move away from macro to enable more micro. It just targets different audiences and people who want that do have MOBAs. Some recent RTS's focussed almost entirely on macro are very popular. To me it looks like people see the "new player" looking at BW only to find it too daunting to try and conclude that reducing the amount of macro must be the key to attract those players. However, I think there are other ways (e.g. social components) and a lot of those players won't be attracted regardless of what you do. Macro cycle is a chore, I am teaching my partner to start sc2 (she has moba background) and she finds that part extremely unfun. And it’s not like with less macro, there’s less strategy behind it, there’s still build order, building placement is still important, expanding etc I personally absolutely agree with more simplified macro cycle, and easier to control units, to focus more on engagements, positioning and strategies. I get BW crowd might not like hearing this but BW is hard and cumbersome, it is definitely driving new players away, and we don’t have a generation of RTS players that can transition into a hard RTS. just wondering what is the recent popular RTS you are talking about? BAR?
I think you missinterpreted my argument. I wasn't arguing that BW isn't hard and cumbersome. I also wasn't arguing that macro cycles are fun. I was arguing that people derive the wrong conclusion from that. For example, following the conclusion I wrote about, Blizzard aimed to make macro easier than in BW - which they achieved. However, I would also argue it is more cumbersome and annoying than in BW because of the extra layers which add more repetitiveness to the process.
You also take anecdotal evidence (aka one person you know) to affirm your point of view. This honestly doesn't mean anything even you were to be correct.
Recent popular RTS with focus on macro are games such as Frostpunk, Dyson Sphere Program, Crusader Kings III, RTS titles in the Total War Series.
|
On April 12 2024 15:48 KingzTig wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 14:19 _Spartak_ wrote:
These aren't "innovations". A ton of non-Blizzard RTSes have done similar things in the past and they were considered inferior to Blizzard RTSes for doing so for years on TL.net but suddenly it is worth praising that a game has super units. What are you looking for then? A complete revamp on RTS mechanics like grey goo/tooth and tail? All you need to do is look at what games zerospace are producing to know it is innovative and not a worse knockoff sc2. Is it going to be bigger than starcraft? Probably not, but not like SG is remotely close. immortal gates of pyre units movement alone is already far more interesting than SG. SG units especially T1 frankly is as blend as it goes, and I don't see why some are thinking T3 and 3rd race is going to bring the change. Even if zerospace T1 units aren't exactly interesting, the way it works is they are still very dynamic with top bar ability is and upgrades from merch/unit upgrades. Immortal also has the best menu interface, visual design imo. Very steam Dota 2 esque vibe and quality. Or lets think about one mechanics that we should borrow from SG and apply to the future RTS generation. Can you think of one because I honestly can't. Not the units, not the buildings, not the design of anything. I am looking for a Blizzard-style RTS that is updated constantly. I don't think RTS needs reinventing the wheel. Innovation is only worth it if it makes things better, not only for the novelty factor.
I think unit design is the strong point of SG compared to the other RTSes you listed. Although if you consider stuff like terror tank the peak of unit design, I can understand why you might find SG's unit design "bland".
|
On April 12 2024 21:40 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 20:03 KingzTig wrote:On April 12 2024 19:28 Miragee wrote:On April 12 2024 05:19 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 11 2024 16:54 Miragee wrote:On April 11 2024 06:01 Fleetfeet wrote:
It isn't because Dota, Valorant, autochess, csgo, fortnite, etcetcetc don't support 1v1, it's because none of those are designed from the ground up as 1v1 games, because 1v1 games aren't as fun.
That said, again the endpoint JUST needs to be a good game. Having 1v1 be the main focus of the game doesn't preclude it from being a good game, I just think it's shooting yourself in the foot a bit, like trying to make a good game that's also an arena shooter in 2024 (sorry WombaT :D) I honestely believe that "1v1 games aren't as fun is" is a false statement. In competitive team games you won't feel (solely) responsible for your losses and I think that's one main factor why these games you mention are generally more popular. The other one is that it's fun to play with friends, almost regardless of how good the game actually is. What I mean is that technically a 1v1 game can be more fun but it's being overridden by people drawing so much enjoyment from interacting with friends. For your second statement: Dusk came out some time ago and it's a great game. Not an arena shooter but the gameplay feels like one. It's smooth and responsive as fuck, super fun. They could as well add an arena mode with that engine to boot. And I'm not even an Arena Shooter fan. The only Arena Shooter I played more than a couple of hours was UT 2004. I hear you, but this does sound a lot like there's a lot of conditions to make 1v1 games as fun. 1v1 is MORE fun if you only have one friend to play with and no other humans exist, but I wasn't really referring to 1v1 in a vacuum vs team games in a vacuum. It's certainly entirely possible that a 1v1 game could be designed and be objectively more fun than a team game, but if we consider that playtime/playerbase probably correlates to fun significantly, then it seems safe to say team games are 'more fun', at least in the current climate. In a general sense I do agree that a 1v1 game could be more fun (Chess and GO, I'm looking at you!) but I don't think that's something I see happening soon in video game land. (The arena shooter thing was mostly a jab at WombaT, I know very little about that genre.) @Spartak "Anymore" is generous. I don't think conversing with JimmyRaynor is producive, he kind of just spews nonsense that isn't worth engaging. Yeah, I agree. I reality there is a lot more to it than just a good game. The social components (interaction with friends, team strategy and so on) are extremely important. Hell, IRL I've chosen to pursue team sports basically my entire life and will continue to do so. I just wanted to rebut that 1v1 cannot be better games or successful but I think we are on the same page here. I know the arena shooter thing was a jab at Wombat. However, I felt like it was also a valid argument to have because we don't have any popular new ones right now and I'm curious as to why. I feel they have everything that a game these days needs: intuitive, fun and satisfying gameplay, not much downtime after "losses" and easily playable for casuals even if the skill ceiling is incredibly high. I think if you add/focus on some different modes such as FFA and team arena in addition to 1v1 as well as a really smooth/responsive engine that just _feels_ good to move in, there is a lot of potential. I just don't see companies approach this at all. I feel like after failures such as UT3 those games died in the grand scheme, even though the reason for the failure was not based on interest but because these new iterations, instead of delivering improvements, actually made things worse. I.e. UT3 just felt worse to play than UT2004 because it was so heavy-handed. On April 12 2024 12:07 KingzTig wrote:On April 11 2024 21:17 Hider wrote:On April 11 2024 18:57 KingzTig wrote:
Gate of pyre (also I had no idea the Dev is from starbow till today) imo has the most innovative approach to the genre so far, that along with zerospace are way beyond what stormgate is experimenting with the formula Where do you think Gates of Pyre is innovating? Because the problem I have with both of those is that even though I can see that Zerospace is trying a few more things than Stormgate it still doesn't look particularly amazing. Do you think you could make a highlight clips of a few minutes, send that to non RTS gamers and they would be really interested to try it out? And if they try it out, would a large percentage of them keep playing? In contrast I remember sending the famous Zed vs Zed Faker vs Ryu outplay from 2023 to multiple Sc2 players who thought it looked awesome and which caused them to try out LOL. For Sc2, I think moments like Infestor burrow --> unborrow fungal is some of the closest we get to that. Or perhaps by psi storm drops, Nuke etc. Or even Marine splitting, multiple drops (although slighltly more complex). There are ways in which you can sell the "highlights of Sc2" to MOBA players. (the bigger problem Sc2 has as previously mentioned is that you can't even attempt to those things as a beginner) FanHots has been streaming zerospace (his main game is heroes of the storm), some in his chat mentioned they even prefer it over hots. As for gates of pyres, they are doing a lot to remove chores and more automate the macro side. Not that macro isn't important, but unit production building serve as a supply building is a great start. And you are able to build multiple units in one building, making it much easier for defence. I think that is what we need to have precisely better micro and more challenging micro moments even. I would definitely agree starcraft still has the best units for sure, but I don't think other games won't find their audience. In Zerospace, you have super units including one that nuke on death. Terror tank always get all the attention in the engagement etc. Some of the unit comp are pretty cool. These are great start imo. My biggest complaint to SG will always be its unit design. It's just so blend even with supposively more interesting upgrade design. I still don't get why people think it's necessary to move away from macro to enable more micro. It just targets different audiences and people who want that do have MOBAs. Some recent RTS's focussed almost entirely on macro are very popular. To me it looks like people see the "new player" looking at BW only to find it too daunting to try and conclude that reducing the amount of macro must be the key to attract those players. However, I think there are other ways (e.g. social components) and a lot of those players won't be attracted regardless of what you do. Macro cycle is a chore, I am teaching my partner to start sc2 (she has moba background) and she finds that part extremely unfun. And it’s not like with less macro, there’s less strategy behind it, there’s still build order, building placement is still important, expanding etc I personally absolutely agree with more simplified macro cycle, and easier to control units, to focus more on engagements, positioning and strategies. I get BW crowd might not like hearing this but BW is hard and cumbersome, it is definitely driving new players away, and we don’t have a generation of RTS players that can transition into a hard RTS. just wondering what is the recent popular RTS you are talking about? BAR? I think you missinterpreted my argument. I wasn't arguing that BW isn't hard and cumbersome. I also wasn't arguing that macro cycles are fun. I was arguing that people derive the wrong conclusion from that. For example, following the conclusion I wrote about, Blizzard aimed to make macro easier than in BW - which they achieved. However, I would also argue it is more cumbersome and annoying than in BW because of the extra layers which add more repetitiveness to the process. You also take anecdotal evidence (aka one person you know) to affirm your point of view. This honestly doesn't mean anything even you were to be correct. Recent popular RTS with focus on macro are games such as Frostpunk, Dyson Sphere Program, Crusader Kings III, RTS titles in the Total War Series.
I don't see how BW macro is more fun when it is extremely cumbersome. SC2 macro cycle at least are unique per race and adds to strategy with its energy system.
It's not perfect but surely it's more fun than one building per control group and clicking individual buildings to build.
My example is still more useful than no example, let alone you also agree it is easier for new comers. Why would yours be a useful opinion and mine wouldn't then. But let's not drag on this.
I won't really say those games are even relevant in the conversation when we are discussing about 1v1 competitive RTS, that also has potential for a eSports title.
|
On April 12 2024 23:17 _Spartak_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 15:48 KingzTig wrote:On April 12 2024 14:19 _Spartak_ wrote:
These aren't "innovations". A ton of non-Blizzard RTSes have done similar things in the past and they were considered inferior to Blizzard RTSes for doing so for years on TL.net but suddenly it is worth praising that a game has super units. What are you looking for then? A complete revamp on RTS mechanics like grey goo/tooth and tail? All you need to do is look at what games zerospace are producing to know it is innovative and not a worse knockoff sc2. Is it going to be bigger than starcraft? Probably not, but not like SG is remotely close. immortal gates of pyre units movement alone is already far more interesting than SG. SG units especially T1 frankly is as blend as it goes, and I don't see why some are thinking T3 and 3rd race is going to bring the change. Even if zerospace T1 units aren't exactly interesting, the way it works is they are still very dynamic with top bar ability is and upgrades from merch/unit upgrades. Immortal also has the best menu interface, visual design imo. Very steam Dota 2 esque vibe and quality. Or lets think about one mechanics that we should borrow from SG and apply to the future RTS generation. Can you think of one because I honestly can't. Not the units, not the buildings, not the design of anything. I am looking for a Blizzard-style RTS that is updated constantly. I don't think RTS needs reinventing the wheel. Innovation is only worth it if it makes things better, not only for the novelty factor. I think unit design is the strong point of SG compared to the other RTSes you listed. Although if you consider stuff like terror tank the peak of unit design, I can understand why you might find SG's unit design "bland".
Updated as in new coop/campaign contents (and maps), or updated as in new units/new balance patches regularly?
BW is hard and cumbersome but y all seem to forget when it was released it was extremely popular at the time and not just in Korea. my entire class went to the cyber cafe and played bw and cs (granted, there were essentially the 2 games back then), but we had very casual folks and we d just 4v4 or ffa or something. it was fun. Didnt even really try 1v1 the first 3-4 yrs. Wife is the same she grew up in Korea and played BW with friends (all girls).
25 years later yeah the game is old and wont attract that many ppl (and yet see the university leagues in korea) but it s a fallacy to say it is not popular because it is hard. People did play the hell out of it, early sc2 too i had several coworkers hooked up with no prior RTS experience, they were all terrible 30apm bronze players but they played each other and friends in not much 1v1 but 3v3 4v4 etc. The social component is key.
|
On April 12 2024 23:35 WGT-Baal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 23:17 _Spartak_ wrote:On April 12 2024 15:48 KingzTig wrote:On April 12 2024 14:19 _Spartak_ wrote:
These aren't "innovations". A ton of non-Blizzard RTSes have done similar things in the past and they were considered inferior to Blizzard RTSes for doing so for years on TL.net but suddenly it is worth praising that a game has super units. What are you looking for then? A complete revamp on RTS mechanics like grey goo/tooth and tail? All you need to do is look at what games zerospace are producing to know it is innovative and not a worse knockoff sc2. Is it going to be bigger than starcraft? Probably not, but not like SG is remotely close. immortal gates of pyre units movement alone is already far more interesting than SG. SG units especially T1 frankly is as blend as it goes, and I don't see why some are thinking T3 and 3rd race is going to bring the change. Even if zerospace T1 units aren't exactly interesting, the way it works is they are still very dynamic with top bar ability is and upgrades from merch/unit upgrades. Immortal also has the best menu interface, visual design imo. Very steam Dota 2 esque vibe and quality. Or lets think about one mechanics that we should borrow from SG and apply to the future RTS generation. Can you think of one because I honestly can't. Not the units, not the buildings, not the design of anything. I am looking for a Blizzard-style RTS that is updated constantly. I don't think RTS needs reinventing the wheel. Innovation is only worth it if it makes things better, not only for the novelty factor. I think unit design is the strong point of SG compared to the other RTSes you listed. Although if you consider stuff like terror tank the peak of unit design, I can understand why you might find SG's unit design "bland". Updated as in new coop/campaign contents (and maps), or updated as in new units/new balance patches regularly?
Ideally both.
|
On April 12 2024 23:17 _Spartak_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 15:48 KingzTig wrote:On April 12 2024 14:19 _Spartak_ wrote:
These aren't "innovations". A ton of non-Blizzard RTSes have done similar things in the past and they were considered inferior to Blizzard RTSes for doing so for years on TL.net but suddenly it is worth praising that a game has super units. What are you looking for then? A complete revamp on RTS mechanics like grey goo/tooth and tail? All you need to do is look at what games zerospace are producing to know it is innovative and not a worse knockoff sc2. Is it going to be bigger than starcraft? Probably not, but not like SG is remotely close. immortal gates of pyre units movement alone is already far more interesting than SG. SG units especially T1 frankly is as blend as it goes, and I don't see why some are thinking T3 and 3rd race is going to bring the change. Even if zerospace T1 units aren't exactly interesting, the way it works is they are still very dynamic with top bar ability is and upgrades from merch/unit upgrades. Immortal also has the best menu interface, visual design imo. Very steam Dota 2 esque vibe and quality. Or lets think about one mechanics that we should borrow from SG and apply to the future RTS generation. Can you think of one because I honestly can't. Not the units, not the buildings, not the design of anything. I am looking for a Blizzard-style RTS that is updated constantly. I don't think RTS needs reinventing the wheel. Innovation is only worth it if it makes things better, not only for the novelty factor. I think unit design is the strong point of SG compared to the other RTSes you listed. Although if you consider stuff like terror tank the peak of unit design, I can understand why you might find SG's unit design "bland".
What's blizzard style when all of them plays so differently.
Blizzard RTS are great because they are incredible RTS, with unique mechanics and great unit design.
As for unit design, SG is better? I am genuinely interested to know which one you find is actually good. Hornet?
I have seen way more praise for legion for terror tanks as the ultimate Warhammer power unit, with rest of the units pretty much as sacrificial, thematically Warhammer 40k/RA3 level of cool.
Just go to giantgrantgames archives and take a look. And i have seen streamers immediately wanting to try the race just for it.
|
Looks like you are talking about visual design. I was talking about gameplay design. If a unit looks cool, that's always a bonus but that fades quickly. What makes you play with the unit in the long term is how fun it is to interact with. Terror tank is an unmicroable unit that doesn't create interesting interactions for either side. Blizzard unit design has been superior not because there haven't been more flash units in other RTSes but because they have a lot of depth in terms of how they interact with the rest of the units in the game.
|
On April 12 2024 23:31 KingzTig wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2024 21:40 Miragee wrote:On April 12 2024 20:03 KingzTig wrote:On April 12 2024 19:28 Miragee wrote:On April 12 2024 05:19 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 11 2024 16:54 Miragee wrote:On April 11 2024 06:01 Fleetfeet wrote:
It isn't because Dota, Valorant, autochess, csgo, fortnite, etcetcetc don't support 1v1, it's because none of those are designed from the ground up as 1v1 games, because 1v1 games aren't as fun.
That said, again the endpoint JUST needs to be a good game. Having 1v1 be the main focus of the game doesn't preclude it from being a good game, I just think it's shooting yourself in the foot a bit, like trying to make a good game that's also an arena shooter in 2024 (sorry WombaT :D) I honestely believe that "1v1 games aren't as fun is" is a false statement. In competitive team games you won't feel (solely) responsible for your losses and I think that's one main factor why these games you mention are generally more popular. The other one is that it's fun to play with friends, almost regardless of how good the game actually is. What I mean is that technically a 1v1 game can be more fun but it's being overridden by people drawing so much enjoyment from interacting with friends. For your second statement: Dusk came out some time ago and it's a great game. Not an arena shooter but the gameplay feels like one. It's smooth and responsive as fuck, super fun. They could as well add an arena mode with that engine to boot. And I'm not even an Arena Shooter fan. The only Arena Shooter I played more than a couple of hours was UT 2004. I hear you, but this does sound a lot like there's a lot of conditions to make 1v1 games as fun. 1v1 is MORE fun if you only have one friend to play with and no other humans exist, but I wasn't really referring to 1v1 in a vacuum vs team games in a vacuum. It's certainly entirely possible that a 1v1 game could be designed and be objectively more fun than a team game, but if we consider that playtime/playerbase probably correlates to fun significantly, then it seems safe to say team games are 'more fun', at least in the current climate. In a general sense I do agree that a 1v1 game could be more fun (Chess and GO, I'm looking at you!) but I don't think that's something I see happening soon in video game land. (The arena shooter thing was mostly a jab at WombaT, I know very little about that genre.) @Spartak "Anymore" is generous. I don't think conversing with JimmyRaynor is producive, he kind of just spews nonsense that isn't worth engaging. Yeah, I agree. I reality there is a lot more to it than just a good game. The social components (interaction with friends, team strategy and so on) are extremely important. Hell, IRL I've chosen to pursue team sports basically my entire life and will continue to do so. I just wanted to rebut that 1v1 cannot be better games or successful but I think we are on the same page here. I know the arena shooter thing was a jab at Wombat. However, I felt like it was also a valid argument to have because we don't have any popular new ones right now and I'm curious as to why. I feel they have everything that a game these days needs: intuitive, fun and satisfying gameplay, not much downtime after "losses" and easily playable for casuals even if the skill ceiling is incredibly high. I think if you add/focus on some different modes such as FFA and team arena in addition to 1v1 as well as a really smooth/responsive engine that just _feels_ good to move in, there is a lot of potential. I just don't see companies approach this at all. I feel like after failures such as UT3 those games died in the grand scheme, even though the reason for the failure was not based on interest but because these new iterations, instead of delivering improvements, actually made things worse. I.e. UT3 just felt worse to play than UT2004 because it was so heavy-handed. On April 12 2024 12:07 KingzTig wrote:On April 11 2024 21:17 Hider wrote:On April 11 2024 18:57 KingzTig wrote:
Gate of pyre (also I had no idea the Dev is from starbow till today) imo has the most innovative approach to the genre so far, that along with zerospace are way beyond what stormgate is experimenting with the formula Where do you think Gates of Pyre is innovating? Because the problem I have with both of those is that even though I can see that Zerospace is trying a few more things than Stormgate it still doesn't look particularly amazing. Do you think you could make a highlight clips of a few minutes, send that to non RTS gamers and they would be really interested to try it out? And if they try it out, would a large percentage of them keep playing? In contrast I remember sending the famous Zed vs Zed Faker vs Ryu outplay from 2023 to multiple Sc2 players who thought it looked awesome and which caused them to try out LOL. For Sc2, I think moments like Infestor burrow --> unborrow fungal is some of the closest we get to that. Or perhaps by psi storm drops, Nuke etc. Or even Marine splitting, multiple drops (although slighltly more complex). There are ways in which you can sell the "highlights of Sc2" to MOBA players. (the bigger problem Sc2 has as previously mentioned is that you can't even attempt to those things as a beginner) FanHots has been streaming zerospace (his main game is heroes of the storm), some in his chat mentioned they even prefer it over hots. As for gates of pyres, they are doing a lot to remove chores and more automate the macro side. Not that macro isn't important, but unit production building serve as a supply building is a great start. And you are able to build multiple units in one building, making it much easier for defence. I think that is what we need to have precisely better micro and more challenging micro moments even. I would definitely agree starcraft still has the best units for sure, but I don't think other games won't find their audience. In Zerospace, you have super units including one that nuke on death. Terror tank always get all the attention in the engagement etc. Some of the unit comp are pretty cool. These are great start imo. My biggest complaint to SG will always be its unit design. It's just so blend even with supposively more interesting upgrade design. I still don't get why people think it's necessary to move away from macro to enable more micro. It just targets different audiences and people who want that do have MOBAs. Some recent RTS's focussed almost entirely on macro are very popular. To me it looks like people see the "new player" looking at BW only to find it too daunting to try and conclude that reducing the amount of macro must be the key to attract those players. However, I think there are other ways (e.g. social components) and a lot of those players won't be attracted regardless of what you do. Macro cycle is a chore, I am teaching my partner to start sc2 (she has moba background) and she finds that part extremely unfun. And it’s not like with less macro, there’s less strategy behind it, there’s still build order, building placement is still important, expanding etc I personally absolutely agree with more simplified macro cycle, and easier to control units, to focus more on engagements, positioning and strategies. I get BW crowd might not like hearing this but BW is hard and cumbersome, it is definitely driving new players away, and we don’t have a generation of RTS players that can transition into a hard RTS. just wondering what is the recent popular RTS you are talking about? BAR? I think you missinterpreted my argument. I wasn't arguing that BW isn't hard and cumbersome. I also wasn't arguing that macro cycles are fun. I was arguing that people derive the wrong conclusion from that. For example, following the conclusion I wrote about, Blizzard aimed to make macro easier than in BW - which they achieved. However, I would also argue it is more cumbersome and annoying than in BW because of the extra layers which add more repetitiveness to the process. You also take anecdotal evidence (aka one person you know) to affirm your point of view. This honestly doesn't mean anything even you were to be correct. Recent popular RTS with focus on macro are games such as Frostpunk, Dyson Sphere Program, Crusader Kings III, RTS titles in the Total War Series. I don't see how BW macro is more fun when it is extremely cumbersome. SC2 macro cycle at least are unique per race and adds to strategy with its energy system. It's not perfect but surely it's more fun than one building per control group and clicking individual buildings to build. My example is still more useful than no example, let alone you also agree it is easier for new comers. Why would yours be a useful opinion and mine wouldn't then. But let's not drag on this. I won't really say those games are even relevant in the conversation when we are discussing about 1v1 competitive RTS, that also has potential for a eSports title.
I didn't say macro cycles in BW are more fun than in SC2. I said I would argue they are more annoying and cumbersome in SC2 than in BW. That doesn't make them necessarily fun in BW... The reason I say that is because you have more of that repetitiveness to the cycle. You don't only have to press some buildings and press another button x times to produce units but you also have to inject/boost/mule because??? It doesn't really add enough strategy do justify their implementation imho. For Z and P they only add some in the early game when you may have to balance your energy. After that, if you miss a cycle you just miss a cycle and it's bad. For terran it basically never adds strategy because you can just rain down mules whenever you want and harvest the benefit.
I think one misunderstanding we still have is that you think I think BW macro is fun for most new players these days and doesn't need to be changed. Let's be clear, I don't think that. But I think you have to focus your change on making it more fun not on making it easier by removing macro from the game because the latter doesn't necessarily makes it more fun. The reason why I think that way is 1. because I have seen attempts in the past and present to make the macro easier by removing certain aspects and it didn't lead to them being more fun. Examples include SC2, Dawn of War 2+3 and yes, also Stormgate. 2. There are macro focussed RTS which are popular. I realise they are not competitive 1v1 games. However, that doesn't make them irrelevant for the discussion. There is still stuff to learn from these games for 1v1, don't you think? Also consider that most players in games we consider competitive RTS (BW/SC2/WC3) never play 1v1. So in that sense there is more comparability than you think.
|
On April 12 2024 23:56 _Spartak_ wrote:
Looks like you are talking about visual design. I was talking about gameplay design. If a unit looks cool, that's always a bonus but that fades quickly. What makes you play with the unit in the long term is how fun it is to interact with. Terror tank is an unmicroable unit that doesn't create interesting interactions for either side. Blizzard unit design has been superior not because there haven't been more flash units in other RTSes but because they have a lot of depth in terms of how they interact with the rest of the units in the game.
Which unit in SG you find meets that criteria? Lancer vs grunt? Scouts?
And no I am not just talking about the visual. You can custom build how the terror tank specialise in. (Though WC3 has hero which are pretty flashy).
I don't know how much you actually know about zerospace mechanics but terror tanks works not only because it's flashy, it works because it fit into their top bar energy system.
Legion being the sacrifical race, means it has the most heroes focused and terror tanks, with its T1 having different roles in different stages of the game and upgrades and top bar upgrades.
And you can fine tune your terror tanks by building 4 different components on it.
It is also the unit you want to protect the most, like a siege tank, but unlike atlas, it actually feels powerful.
Watch some zerospace matches and you will see there's significantly more dynamic engagements throughout the game.
|
Which unit in SG you find meets that criteria? Lancer vs grunt? Scouts?
Pretty much all of them with some exceptions. Lancer is actually one of the most interesting tier 1 melee units I have ever seen in an RTS. Definitely more interesting than a zealot or grunt/footman, which would be the closest comparisons in Blizzard RTSes. The fact that you brought it up as if it was a bad example makes me think we are still not talking about the same thing.
And no I am not just talking about the visual. You can custom build how the terror tank specialise in. I don't really find that interesting. It is just another way of building your composition just like building X unit instead of Y. It is not bad per se to have such a mechanic but it doesn't make the unit interesting or fun to play with on its own.
Watch some zerospace matches and you will see there's significantly more dynamic engagements throughout the game.
I have watched quite a lot of ZS matches. It just feels like once you watched one, you watched them all. Depending on what you mean by "dynamic", it might be described as such. There is constant action. But it is all about low stakes action happening throughout the game and all battles look similar. Samey units fighting each other in samey battles.
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On April 13 2024 00:47 _Spartak_ wrote:Pretty much all of them with some exceptions. Lancer is actually one of the most interesting tier 1 melee units I have ever seen in an RTS. Definitely more interesting than a zealot or grunt/footman, which would be the closest comparisons in Blizzard RTSes. The fact that you brought it up as if it was a bad example makes me think we are still not talking about the same thing. Show nested quote +And no I am not just talking about the visual. You can custom build how the terror tank specialise in. I don't really find that interesting. It is just another way of building your composition just like building X unit instead of Y. It is not bad per se to have such a mechanic but it doesn't make the unit interesting or fun to play with on its own. Show nested quote +Watch some zerospace matches and you will see there's significantly more dynamic engagements throughout the game.
I have watched quite a lot of ZS matches. It just feels like once you watched one, you watched them all. Depending on what you mean by "dynamic", it might be described as such. There is constant action. But it is all about low stakes action happening throughout the game and all battles look similar. Samey units fighting each other in samey battles.
I’ll also add that basic units are a huge part of an RTS, not everything has to be flashy or unique. Zealots are just beefy blokes with mind swords, zerglings are speedy cute little critters, marines are rednecks with gauss guns.
The interesting parts come in how they interact with other, more complex units and mechanics. Mine dragging, splitting against storms, Zealot bombs etc etc.
I think it was (giant?)grantgames, can’t remember his name but he did an interesting general video on RTS. Crazy power units, devastating super weapons and general ridiculousness are super fun power fantasies to have in a PvE RTS. Which I agree with, but such units really aren’t super fun in a PvP setting. They tend to be so strong they’re not super micro-dependent and not super exciting to deploy, and they’re not super fun to play against because the effective counter play can often be ‘don’t let them get that unit’
I don’t think they’ve remotely nailed balance yet, I wouldn’t expect them to but I do think FG have some pretty decent units so far at a core design level.
I’d need to watch more Zerospace myself to have any real opinion on it. From first impressions, if SG is maybe playing it rather safe, ZS is throwing a bunch of things at the wall and I’m not sure if it’ll all stick. Although obviously hoping for the best in both
I’m long of the view that in a PvP focused RTS game it’s a bit of a tightrope to walk being simple and relatively predictable, versus having too many mechanics and being a bit volatile.
|
|
|
United States33714 Posts
Good to see there's still pretty massive changes being made between iterations. Not sure how I feel about Tier 1 core casters as a general concept tho 
|
Why does that thing have a completely male phenotype have an old lady hag's voice?
If they wanted to make you have jacked muscle lady demon units they forgot some anatomy pieces and proper coordination for even that.
Also now the whole demon tier 1 is voodoo aesthetic - hags with staves limping around doing swamp magic and troll axe-thrower things in tribal masks, pulling in the classic problematic blizzard trope of voodoo characters. (Trolls, Nazeebo, Gabriel Tosh) They should have caught all this racial encoding.
|
On April 13 2024 05:19 MegaBuster wrote:
Why does that thing with a completely male phenotype have an old lady hag's voice?
Because they wanted it to feel like your mother in law, but with an infernal style
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
Promising vid and blog IMO. Things seem a bit further along than I’d thought overall and good insight into how they’re approaching the various modes.
Even small things that aren’t crazily revolutionary, but interesting nonetheless. Water terrain of varying frogs that may impede some units and not others for example.
Myth 2 is probably the last game in the vague genre that I felt used water in a tactically interesting way. You’d move slower, certain weapons wouldn’t work like dwarf Molotovs, the undead could cross deep rivers with their ‘not breathing’ hax. Most other RTS games (that I’ve played) water is just this disconnected plane that’s either just impassable, or the domain of water-specific units who engage in some parallel conflict. So that could be cool.
I’m liking some of the core changes, I’m not sure if these were placeholders that were always going to be swapped out, or were just subject to a rethink somewhere down the way. This is in theory, implementation is a whole other kettle of fish.
1. Creep camps being positions you hold rather than conferring one-time bonuses I can only see as a good change. Encourages territorial play and splitting armies up. In WC3 creeping being a tactical race for positions/counter creeping worked super well because heroes levelling and getting items conferred permanent bonuses and armies and expanding were smaller focuses for that game.
2. In theory I like the tweak to how the infernals generate and use their infest modifier (or whatever it’s called) via a support caster. Makes it more controllable and less volatile than how it was before. I’m not a massive fan of modifiers that are very situational, makes them hard as a player to manage and predict. I’m still unsure on veterancy for the same reason, does it end up in something snowbally?
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On April 13 2024 05:19 MegaBuster wrote:
Why does that thing with a completely male phenotype have an old lady hag's voice?
If they wanted to make you have jacked muscle lady demon units they forgot some anatomy pieces and proper coordination for even that.
Also now the whole demon tier 1 is voodoo aesthetic - hags with staves limping around doing swamp magic and troll axe-thrower things in tribal masks, pulling in the classic problematic blizzard trope of voodoo characters. (Trolls, Nazeebo, Gabriel Tosh) They should have caught all this racial encoding.
Man you’re a ray of sunshine when it comes to this game eh? I don’t look at that unit and think the weird demon creature is especially masculine/feminine, it’s just a ‘thing’
As the Overmind/Abathur and most Zerg characters outside of Kerrigan are pretty gender ambiguous, if they have one at all
You might have a point on Blizzard/subsequently and how they do the voodoo aesthetic to be fair
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
