Slightly off topic: I often dream that we could have a game that would combine the MOBA aspects with RTS. So a 5v5 man team where 4 players control hero's and one player controls an army.
I think hero micro and econ macro are hard to combine. So is individual heroes and whole armies, WC3 had to use the frustrating mechanic "upkeep" as a bandaid.
In PvP, either the heroes need to be so OP the armies melt, or the heroes will get swarmed.
Campaigns are different, but the Heroes are arguably OP there too (Kerrigan...)
Upkeep was a pretty interesting and strategic mechanic, actually somewhat hamstrung by WC3’s less economically focused gameplay. As there wasn’t a huge advantage from ever having more than 2 bases, the supply cap was low the scope of the mechanic was somewhat limited, although still impactful
I hope Frost Giant do something like it. I don’t know what that ‘it’ is, but something new and interesting. At present it feels like a Frankenstein’s monster of the good parts of Blizz RTS games, shorn of some elements and all stitched together.
Which will still kick ass if they nail it, I’d still like to see some new, innovative elements too.
Warcraft 3 was innovative as fuck. Despite its beloved reputation now there was a ton of skepticism on what Blizzard were doing with it. They had the courage of their convictions and it kicked ass.
Yeah I think upkeep was more than a bandaid it was a deliberate attempt at doing something different with individual units having more importance and less focus on churning out as many as you can from production.
On May 31 2023 17:01 Hildegard wrote: As someone who enjoys watching RTS more than playing, the lower lethality and bigger defender's advantage has me slightly worried. What makes SC2 so exciting is that the game can end at any time.
I feel you but the game really should be designed for players first.
Imagine loving to play AND watch !!
I don’t think you’d lose anything anyway, it’d just be enhanced if they find the sweet spot.
Some of the most fun stuff to watch are the crazy micro battles you see when army supplies are quite small.
In SC2 you could give archon control to Seru and Maru and they’ll still struggle to do much fancy with a max engage that lasts sub-5 seconds
Of course go too far in the other direction and you end up with elongated slugfests with units that are too tanky, so I’m interested to see what kind of balance they come up with.
From what I’ve heard it’s currently playing as somewhere between SC2 and WC3 in that regard, which is 100% where I’d go, perhaps erring towards SC2 speed very slightly
beastyqt seemed to indicate from his pre-alpha testing that Stormgate's speed is somewhere between AOE4 and SC2. so it looks like we're in the FUN zone as far as gamespeed is concerned: erring slightly towards SC2 speed
That sounds a whole lot like Broodwar, which is great.
On June 02 2023 03:04 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Yeah I think upkeep was more than a bandaid it was a deliberate attempt at doing something different with individual units having more importance and less focus on churning out as many as you can from production.
It is all interconnected, if you want a hero focused game, you can't have big, amassed armies, so Upkeep was the solution they came up with. In retrospect, though, the DOTA formula of autospawned uncontrollable creeps and no base building at all turned out to be much more successful.
Needless to say, I hope Sormgate will NOT have hero units in PvP.
I am very curious about how they manage the different tasks you need to do in an RTS: econ, basebuilding, army building, expansion strategy, tech choices, army composition, micro and army tactics. SC2 is a lot about what you do in your base, and whoever is faster with better multitasking will usually be the better player. The market for that kind of demanding game might be limited now, 25 years after the heyday of RTS😔
Was having a read through, much promising. Thought it was worth posting as a kind of one-stop-shop
I do get certain alarm bells with certain things but it’s entirely dependent on what else they’re doing.
Easier macro mechanics and in some ways micro, hey I like doing those things.
But if there’s a lot of rich strategy and the easier UI is bolted on to satisfactory and high skill ceiling micro it can totally work for me.
Reading that summation all together actually got me pretty hyped. One huge concern I had was the hero feature. I struggled to do well in 1v1 WC3 cause I didn't want my hero to be the my main focus. However, I love co-op play in SC2 and think the hero's synergize well. I think there is room for hero play if done right.
Slightly off topic: I often dream that we could have a game that would combine the MOBA aspects with RTS. So a 5v5 man team where 4 players control hero's and one player controls an army.
There are games that do this with FPS + RTS Like 5 guys are on the ground, battling it out Battlefield style, while one guy is Commander and does base building and stuff. All with some connected ressource system between to two playstyles
Was having a read through, much promising. Thought it was worth posting as a kind of one-stop-shop
I do get certain alarm bells with certain things but it’s entirely dependent on what else they’re doing.
Easier macro mechanics and in some ways micro, hey I like doing those things.
But if there’s a lot of rich strategy and the easier UI is bolted on to satisfactory and high skill ceiling micro it can totally work for me.
Reading that summation all together actually got me pretty hyped. One huge concern I had was the hero feature. I struggled to do well in 1v1 WC3 cause I didn't want my hero to be the my main focus. However, I love co-op play in SC2 and think the hero's synergize well. I think there is room for hero play if done right.
Slightly off topic: I often dream that we could have a game that would combine the MOBA aspects with RTS. So a 5v5 man team where 4 players control hero's and one player controls an army.
There are games that do this with FPS + RTS Like 5 guys are on the ground, battling it out Battlefield style, while one guy is Commander and does base building and stuff. All with some connected ressource system between to two playstyles
I don't think there are games like that other than Savage, and that's pretty old. I would like to know if there were others.
Marketing RTS games isn't easy because the vast majority of players play campaign and then coop or arcade. However, I think there is an untapped market for advertisement that goes for bragging rights. RTS games are probably the hardest games to master and that could be used to market 1v1. All the SC2 ads I remember focussed on casual players, and that might have been a mistake. Maybe Stormgate will use a different approach.
Was having a read through, much promising. Thought it was worth posting as a kind of one-stop-shop
I do get certain alarm bells with certain things but it’s entirely dependent on what else they’re doing.
Easier macro mechanics and in some ways micro, hey I like doing those things.
But if there’s a lot of rich strategy and the easier UI is bolted on to satisfactory and high skill ceiling micro it can totally work for me.
Reading that summation all together actually got me pretty hyped. One huge concern I had was the hero feature. I struggled to do well in 1v1 WC3 cause I didn't want my hero to be the my main focus. However, I love co-op play in SC2 and think the hero's synergize well. I think there is room for hero play if done right.
Slightly off topic: I often dream that we could have a game that would combine the MOBA aspects with RTS. So a 5v5 man team where 4 players control hero's and one player controls an army.
There are games that do this with FPS + RTS Like 5 guys are on the ground, battling it out Battlefield style, while one guy is Commander and does base building and stuff. All with some connected ressource system between to two playstyles
I don't think there are games like that other than Savage, and that's pretty old. I would like to know if there were others.
There's Nuclear Dawn. I thought that was a good game with good ideas but obviously far from flawless. The multiplayer communication aspect was super fun though.
Was having a read through, much promising. Thought it was worth posting as a kind of one-stop-shop
I do get certain alarm bells with certain things but it’s entirely dependent on what else they’re doing.
Easier macro mechanics and in some ways micro, hey I like doing those things.
But if there’s a lot of rich strategy and the easier UI is bolted on to satisfactory and high skill ceiling micro it can totally work for me.
Reading that summation all together actually got me pretty hyped. One huge concern I had was the hero feature. I struggled to do well in 1v1 WC3 cause I didn't want my hero to be the my main focus. However, I love co-op play in SC2 and think the hero's synergize well. I think there is room for hero play if done right.
Slightly off topic: I often dream that we could have a game that would combine the MOBA aspects with RTS. So a 5v5 man team where 4 players control hero's and one player controls an army.
There are games that do this with FPS + RTS Like 5 guys are on the ground, battling it out Battlefield style, while one guy is Commander and does base building and stuff. All with some connected ressource system between to two playstyles
I don't think there are games like that other than Savage, and that's pretty old. I would like to know if there were others.
There are a few existing when you just type "fps rpg hybrid" into google. Though I haven't played any of them. Battlezone, Natural Selection, and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars to name a few of them Then there are games like C&C Renegade and the newer Earthbreakers which are based on RTS but don't have an active RTS element (Commander) And on the soon to be list is a game called Silica https://www.polygon.com/23671940/silica-fps-rts-bohemia-interactive-steam-early-access
On June 02 2023 17:55 Hildegard wrote:All the SC2 ads I remember focussed on casual players, and that might have been a mistake. Maybe Stormgate will use a different approach.
the marketing of SC2 was damn near perfect. it is the highest revenue RTS of all time.
Aside from the classic Tychus ‘hell it’s about time’ clip, which is marketing so solid I still remember it all these years later, did Blizz even do that much marketing?
I mean I’m sure they did I just don’t remember a huge amount of it. Between being the sequel to Starcraft and everything Blizzard touched turning to gold those days
At the time of SC:BW and WC3 these were among the best games as far as story goes. Stormgate doesn't look like it's going to have a story that stands out in 2023. What could however stand out is the competitive aspect of 1v1 and maybe marketing that specifically would work.
If they do focus heavily on hero type units, smaller armies and micro type battles, I feel like there's just going to be half a moba, and moba does it better/is a team game/already is established so its never going to work.
When I used to play SC like 20 years ago it happend a few times to me that I'd be losing and my opponent would share vision and they'd have the whole map. That made quite an impression, holy MACRO, I had no chance. I loved that about bw, because base management was so hard and people could really dominate with macro play.
From that perspective stormgate doesn't excite me that much. I wonder if I'm in a huge minority of sc/sc2 players that just love macro and are not really that wow'ed with a guy try-harding to micro a unit for a long time.
On June 05 2023 20:12 Hildegard wrote: At the time of SC:BW and WC3 these were among the best games as far as story goes. Stormgate doesn't look like it's going to have a story that stands out in 2023. What could however stand out is the competitive aspect of 1v1 and maybe marketing that specifically would work.
You’re talking probably 2 of my top 5 games, they have serviceable to decent stories. 7/10 bolted on to 10/10 gameplay does the job.
They did have bloody solid character and unit designs, some memorable characters and some bloody excellent music/sound design and voice work (which tends to go a bit overlooked).
SC2’s actual story, weaker for me, I don’t like some of the melodrama pseudo-romance angles etc. Probably the best Blizzard RTS campaigns nonetheless. Pretty much every kind of conceivable RTS campaign mission is in there. Having different factions/evolutions and ways to tweak your army for a specific mission outside of the stock unit base available in multiplayer, great choice. Achievements added challenge and replayability, a wise choice to incorporate given how many gamers love achievement hunting.
On June 02 2023 03:04 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Yeah I think upkeep was more than a bandaid it was a deliberate attempt at doing something different with individual units having more importance and less focus on churning out as many as you can from production.
It is all interconnected, if you want a hero focused game, you can't have big, amassed armies, so Upkeep was the solution they came up with. In retrospect, though, the DOTA formula of autospawned uncontrollable creeps and no base building at all turned out to be much more successful.
Needless to say, I hope Sormgate will NOT have hero units in PvP.
I am very curious about how they manage the different tasks you need to do in an RTS: econ, basebuilding, army building, expansion strategy, tech choices, army composition, micro and army tactics. SC2 is a lot about what you do in your base, and whoever is faster with better multitasking will usually be the better player. The market for that kind of demanding game might be limited now, 25 years after the heyday of RTS😔
I think there's more to that than this. You can have hero focused gameplay AND heavy macro (Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander come to mind) since heroes are still your best units with the highest impact. Upkeep was more of a way to limit the scope of engagements which is IMO much easier to follow for the spectators. It also adds some strategic depth because you can either stay at low upkeep and thus have stronger economy or break the upkeep and have a stronger army to overwhelm your opponent.
It's quite brilliant actually, juggling the risk/reward factors of upkeep. If you break the upkeep and produce more units but fail to inflict significant damage or outright win you're now more behind than if you haven't done that. This requires you to really hone your game sense and being able to correctly judge the situation, especially that it's no longer simple "more production = more win."
Was having a read through, much promising. Thought it was worth posting as a kind of one-stop-shop
I do get certain alarm bells with certain things but it’s entirely dependent on what else they’re doing.
Easier macro mechanics and in some ways micro, hey I like doing those things.
But if there’s a lot of rich strategy and the easier UI is bolted on to satisfactory and high skill ceiling micro it can totally work for me.
Reading that summation all together actually got me pretty hyped. One huge concern I had was the hero feature. I struggled to do well in 1v1 WC3 cause I didn't want my hero to be the my main focus. However, I love co-op play in SC2 and think the hero's synergize well. I think there is room for hero play if done right.
Slightly off topic: I often dream that we could have a game that would combine the MOBA aspects with RTS. So a 5v5 man team where 4 players control hero's and one player controls an army.
There are games that do this with FPS + RTS Like 5 guys are on the ground, battling it out Battlefield style, while one guy is Commander and does base building and stuff. All with some connected ressource system between to two playstyles
I don't think there are games like that other than Savage, and that's pretty old. I would like to know if there were others.
There are a few existing when you just type "fps rpg hybrid" into google. Though I haven't played any of them. Battlezone, Natural Selection, and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars to name a few of them Then there are games like C&C Renegade and the newer Earthbreakers which are based on RTS but don't have an active RTS element (Commander) And on the soon to be list is a game called Silica https://www.polygon.com/23671940/silica-fps-rts-bohemia-interactive-steam-early-access
Allegiance as well, which was a very unique gaming experience but also a case study in how 1) needing a large playerbase is detrimental 2) combining that with a ridiculous learning curve is uber detrimental
On June 05 2023 20:12 Hildegard wrote: At the time of SC:BW and WC3 these were among the best games as far as story goes. Stormgate doesn't look like it's going to have a story that stands out in 2023. What could however stand out is the competitive aspect of 1v1 and maybe marketing that specifically would work.
it might work in Germany or Korea. Other than that, the rest of the world has had a long look at RTS competitive 1v1 and moved on.
Frost Giant stated they will be creating experiences to satisfy the audiences for the parts of SC2 that drew the most engagement. Co-Op in SC2 was huge. Tim Morton's Red Alert 3 team was the first to dive into Co-op hard core by making Red Alert 3's campaign entirely Co-op. It was pretty damn cool.
Adding Co-op campaign missions to SC2: Legacy of the Void was a brilliant move by Blizzard.
On June 02 2023 03:04 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Yeah I think upkeep was more than a bandaid it was a deliberate attempt at doing something different with individual units having more importance and less focus on churning out as many as you can from production.
It is all interconnected, if you want a hero focused game, you can't have big, amassed armies, so Upkeep was the solution they came up with. In retrospect, though, the DOTA formula of autospawned uncontrollable creeps and no base building at all turned out to be much more successful.
Needless to say, I hope Sormgate will NOT have hero units in PvP.
I am very curious about how they manage the different tasks you need to do in an RTS: econ, basebuilding, army building, expansion strategy, tech choices, army composition, micro and army tactics. SC2 is a lot about what you do in your base, and whoever is faster with better multitasking will usually be the better player. The market for that kind of demanding game might be limited now, 25 years after the heyday of RTS😔
Mobas had become more successful than RTS as a whole, as they pulled in a lot of players in an era where gaming became much more popular years after years and a large proportion of players like to play team games, and games that aren't heavily demanding on mechanics like RTS are. I thought I read somewhere the plan for Stormgate is to have heroes only in team games.
On June 02 2023 03:04 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Yeah I think upkeep was more than a bandaid it was a deliberate attempt at doing something different with individual units having more importance and less focus on churning out as many as you can from production.
It is all interconnected, if you want a hero focused game, you can't have big, amassed armies, so Upkeep was the solution they came up with. In retrospect, though, the DOTA formula of autospawned uncontrollable creeps and no base building at all turned out to be much more successful.
Needless to say, I hope Sormgate will NOT have hero units in PvP.
I am very curious about how they manage the different tasks you need to do in an RTS: econ, basebuilding, army building, expansion strategy, tech choices, army composition, micro and army tactics. SC2 is a lot about what you do in your base, and whoever is faster with better multitasking will usually be the better player. The market for that kind of demanding game might be limited now, 25 years after the heyday of RTS😔
I think there's more to that than this. You can have hero focused gameplay AND heavy macro (Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander come to mind) since heroes are still your best units with the highest impact. Upkeep was more of a way to limit the scope of engagements which is IMO much easier to follow for the spectators. It also adds some strategic depth because you can either stay at low upkeep and thus have stronger economy or break the upkeep and have a stronger army to overwhelm your opponent.
It's quite brilliant actually, juggling the risk/reward factors of upkeep. If you break the upkeep and produce more units but fail to inflict significant damage or outright win you're now more behind than if you haven't done that. This requires you to really hone your game sense and being able to correctly judge the situation, especially that it's no longer simple "more production = more win."
It would work really well I think if explored further, I haven’t encountered it too much since, well, at all.
It adds a deep, top level of economic/tactical consideration as another layer. Plus it’s quite a good potential anti-snowball mechanic.
If RTS has one consistent problem, despite still being my favourite genre it is a very snowballing-heavy one. Where I think WC3 doesn’t maybe fully harness it is 1/2 bases is enough for your eco and it’s purely tied into supply. Whereas let’s say hypothetically it was also tied to new bases, so you could bypass some of the upkeep tax, at the expense of stretching yourself thinner.
You could have some interesting clashes of styles. Staying at low upkeep and forcing trades early, a classic Zerg style of taking a load of the map and building an unstoppable eco while deflecting everything, and making the choice to build a killer army for a timing attack despite the upkeep hit, down to the traditional RTS turtle
Could be cool, although I don’t know if this proposed game is maybe as eco/macro and big supply cap focused for it to fit perfectly
Hey I’m spitballing a bit, but in the lack of concrete info I do like to do this. I do hope they do throw in something a little different to the game in some form
EPT
