On June 16 2023 01:08 Garrl wrote: There's also a slightly strange decision to add a single target stun mechanic when most modern game designers for PVP games explicitly avoid stun mechanics because it just isn't fun to not be able to interact. Might give a hint to the designers also trying to incorporate PVE mechanics in the same 'ruleset.'
Stun grenades. MOBA stuns. Stuns in all starcrat made so far. Stuns in warcraft. Stuns in MMO's.
If every stun was instead a super critical high damage hit most likely 1 shotting you is that more or less fun? Does your team or other units have more or less time to help you? Stun haters made at game mechanics rather than the fact that they didn't do enough to prevent it or make it ineffective through their decision making.
I mean, that's funny, I guess, but it's also literally accurate in this case. Blizzard had a lot of devs who were passionate about making more Blizzard-style RTS games, and Blizzard wasn't interested in continuing to invest resources in games like that. So they created a new company where they'd be free to continue making games like the ones they used to make at Blizzard, because it wasn't possible to do that there any more.
Blizz couldn’t even handle a remaster of one of their all-time classic titles, started phasing back development of SC2
If you were passionate about making the next great Blizz-style RTS Blizz quite patently wasn’t looking like the place to do it. Although that said I haven’t seen much movement from other major studios in that space either
I mean neither of those comments contradict what I take to be one of the underlying premises of those few tweets, which is that the whole enterprise is destined to failure and won't result in a truly new good game. Curiously, if true this is gonna prove the old bosses right: "Thank god we didn't give you 5 million $ to develop a new RTS back when you were with us, because you now managed to convince someone else to give you that money (with big creative freedom I presume) and the best thing you came up with is some variation of SC2/WC3 that few people will care about"
It reminds me of what you can read if you go to https://beyondallreason.info/: One of the first blurbs you can read there is "Real-Time Strategy Redefined"; well apparently the new definition of RTS looks an awful lot like the TA/SupCom flavor of the old definition of RTS.
On June 16 2023 21:11 sophisticated wrote: I mean neither of those comments contradict what I take to be one of the underlying premises of those few tweets, which is that the whole enterprise is destined to failure and won't result in a truly new good game. Curiously, if true this is gonna prove the old bosses right: "Thank god we didn't give you 5 million $ to develop a new RTS back when you were with us, because you now managed to convince someone else to give you that money (with big creative freedom I presume) and the best thing you came up with is some variation of SC2/WC3 that few people will care about"
It reminds me of what you can read if you go to https://beyondallreason.info/: One of the first blurbs you can read there is "Real-Time Strategy Redefined"; well apparently the new definition of RTS looks an awful lot like the TA/SupCom flavor of the old definition of RTS.
It’s quite difficult at this juncture to reinvent the wheel so to speak.
If a developer managed get the funding to make a new arena FPS that had a shot at success, but ultimately it was a hybrid of UT/Quake 3 with a few other tweaks I’d still play the absolute shit out of that game even if it wasn’t some innovative new experience
I don’t think Frost Giant have particularly marketed the game as much other than a love letter to classic Blizz RTS games with some QoL changes and a few novel ideas, and it seems to be largely shaping up to be that
On June 16 2023 22:05 WombaT wrote: If a developer managed get the funding to make a new arena FPS that had a shot at success, but ultimately it was a hybrid of UT/Quake 3 with a few other tweaks I’d still play the absolute shit out of that game even if it wasn’t some innovative new experience
Diabotical did just that and is now a dead game...
I think the problem now is that there are simply way too many games being released all the time and no one is really going to stick to a game for an extended period of time (and why studios gravitate towards those live service games to extend their shelf life so to say).
One saving grace for potential games is if they manage to gather enough audience in the beginning to either get a cult following or big enough e-sport scene to keep it alive. I'm just baffled that so many studios assume their game is going to do just that (which is quite often extremely unrealistic and optimistic view) instead of cutting their losses and simply aiming for a smaller game that people will play through a few times and move on to new shiny thing. Nothing wrong with such games and not every game must be "the next big thing" that will take over people's lives, I think we need some smaller entertaining stuff too.
The question I still have about this project is what exactly their theory of the case is – why is everybody wrong about RTS? It’s been conventional wisdom for like a decade now that RTS is dead. The reasons people give for that are all over the map, and obviously there’s been smaller, more focused RTS titles like Tooth and Tail or They Are Billions or Riftbreaker in that time. But everybody seems to think the big ambitious Starcrafts and Warcrafts and C&C’s are over.
I usually hear that pronounced pretty mournfully, which to me suggests there’s a market to be served if somebody tries it. Often people think it’s because MOBAs filled the same spot, which has some truth to it, but they don’t really scratch the same itch, do they? So I’m definitely open to the idea, but it would be nice to hear them say “here’s why everybody thinks that, and here’s why we’re different.”
What FGS said about RTS that is appealing to me, personally, is that they said they wanted to focus on more social RTS aka co-op mode and designing around modes like 3v3. Not many other RTS games have a co-op mode at all despite how well it was received in SC2, and while many RTS support 3v3 it's rare for a game to design around it, so it'll be interesting to see whether they can actually do it.
On June 17 2023 03:22 Southlight wrote: What FGS said about RTS that is appealing to me, personally, is that they said they wanted to focus on more social RTS aka co-op mode and designing around modes like 3v3. Not many other RTS games have a co-op mode at all despite how well it was received in SC2, and while many RTS support 3v3 it's rare for a game to design around it, so it'll be interesting to see whether they can actually do it.
I think that's one of the main legs of their "why this is different" pitch, that they're trying to make an RTS that's more accessible to people who don't already know what to expect. Having game modes that are more collaborative and social will give people a place to start if they find straight 1v1 intimidating or overwhelming. I don't exactly know that I'd say new player accessibility is The Thing That Killed RTS Games, but I think MOBA's show that you can have RTS-style controls and a lot of complexity, but the social team-based multiplayer at their heart goes a long way.
On June 16 2023 21:11 sophisticated wrote: I mean neither of those comments contradict what I take to be one of the underlying premises of those few tweets, which is that the whole enterprise is destined to failure and won't result in a truly new good game. Curiously, if true this is gonna prove the old bosses right: "Thank god we didn't give you 5 million $ to develop a new RTS back when you were with us, because you now managed to convince someone else to give you that money (with big creative freedom I presume) and the best thing you came up with is some variation of SC2/WC3 that few people will care about"
It reminds me of what you can read if you go to https://beyondallreason.info/: One of the first blurbs you can read there is "Real-Time Strategy Redefined"; well apparently the new definition of RTS looks an awful lot like the TA/SupCom flavor of the old definition of RTS.
It’s quite difficult at this juncture to reinvent the wheel so to speak.
If a developer managed get the funding to make a new arena FPS that had a shot at success, but ultimately it was a hybrid of UT/Quake 3 with a few other tweaks I’d still play the absolute shit out of that game even if it wasn’t some innovative new experience
I don’t think Frost Giant have particularly marketed the game as much other than a love letter to classic Blizz RTS games with some QoL changes and a few novel ideas, and it seems to be largely shaping up to be that
They are definitely playing it quite safe. Although tbf they were clear from the beginning that it would be a "classic RTS game" with some QoL improvements.
I am personally still looking for a game that properly reinvents the RTS genre. To do well by other players than previous RTS players, I thinks the genre needs bigger changes.
I usually hear that pronounced pretty mournfully, which to me suggests there’s a market to be served if somebody tries it. Often people think it’s because MOBAs filled the same spot, which has some truth to it, but they don’t really scratch the same itch, do they? So I’m definitely open to the idea, but it would be nice to hear them say “here’s why everybody thinks that, and here’s why we’re different.”
Very relevant question. One part most of us can agree upon is that Sc2/Sc1 are too hard games for new players to get into. Now exactly how we wanna address that, there are conflicting uponions. Stormgate attempts to reduce the skill floor through QoL improvements such as auto-hotkeys and slowing down gameplay a bit to make it easier for player to micro.
I don't think it's gonna be enough. And that aside, If you showed the gameplay to an average MOBA player, would they be excited to try it out? I really doubt so.
Luckily for Frostgiant they have been quite fast at developing the game, so perhaps they don't millions of players to make a profit/break-even. Perhaps it can work out "ok" if they can acquire the majority of the hardcore RTS players there are left. Still a little unambitious for my taste.
but I think MOBA's show that you can have RTS-style controls and a lot of complexity, but the social team-based multiplayer at their heart goes a long way.
I think it's simply much much easier mechanically to play a hero than to manage macro, build orders, micro, scouting and strategies all at the same time. At the same time MOBA's still manage to maintain some degree of skillcap.
We have many examples of games like teamfight tactics, heartstone, fifa etc. that shows that casuals are fine with playing without being on a team as long as the core game-mechanics are fun and somewhat simple.
That's not to say improving the social experience isn't a good thing. But I doubt that a better social experience is enough to revitalize the RTS genre. I think addressing the core gameplay is the first priority.
Yeah i think generally the social factor is not nearly as important as people say it is. Yes it is a positive aspect if you can play easily with your friends, but let's be real for a moment, MANY people play the popular games like csgo or mobas in a solo queue, randomly playing with others, which more often than not becomes a negative experience on the social level. They put up with it because the core gameplay of these games is so good. (though there could be an argument to be made that the gameplay inherently is social, and that this experience outweighs the actual social interaction (chat, voice, etc).
Personally i think conventional rts games are too much of a sandbox for most players, whereas other genres give players a direction of gameplay. Really bad csgo might still be night and day a difference compared to pro csgo, BUT one generally 'plays' the game because the game forces you to. You still have the rounds with a very clear round goal, it manages to give even the newest players something defined to do. Mobas do that too through their creeps. Rts? Hardly, rts is really, really bad at creating the core experience of pvp for the player, because the overall goal of "destroy all enemy buildings" is not really comunicated through the gameplay itself. It makes no difference if you interact with your enemy or if you do not in any direct manner, it's not clear when and how to do so or even why.
I think frostgiant realizes that to some degree and that is why creep camps are a thing here, but i am not sure how well that is integrated and if it helps as much as it should.
I haven't played Starcraft 2 in almost 10 years, mostly because the game can be frustrating. I hoped Stormgate would change some elements which take out the fun from playing but it looks like they're still there. For me, the annoying parts are: -you always play in the dark, when you see the army in the minimap the enemy is coming for you. -the game relies on building units right at the moment they're available. You can queue but it's not optimal. -ways to get the game stolen from you when you should have won, the opponent lifting his buildings, hiding something on the map, or the game ending in a base race.
Basically the frustrating parts are things that you feel you can't control. While these elements help differenciate the good players from the bad players, for me it's not really strategy. I would always show production bars in the UI so you know when things are being build or buildings are not producing. I would also give a lot more vision, think of current wars, satellites can see a lot. In the video there are red circles in the fog of war for each unit so maybe you have info about the enemy even without scouting.
What would be interesting is to make the actual strategy part of the game more about position, especially at the beginning when you have 1 base and the base is small. Maybe you could start on 3 bases with workers divided into these bases. This way you could transfer workers if you got attacked and you wouldn't lose as much. You would have to position your units either all at one point, or scattered on several bases. You would always have something to let you delay the attack, either in the middle of the map or in a base before the other units would come. That's what you have in ball sports and the position of every player is visible. You could have that in a strategy game if the game gave you more vision.
Another thing that I don't like is how macro snowballs exponentially rather than linearly. For example if your production wasn't determined by how many buildings you had or how many workers you had, you wouldn't be exponentially behind if you lost some of it. Buildings and workers could only determine where your units are produced or where you mine, but it wouldn't be exponential if you lost something, and games would be closer overall and less frustrating.
There's a whole theory about fun in games to make it fun even when you're losing, like for example in casinos. The idea is when you lose you have to feel it was close and that you almost won.
Overall at the moment I feel Stormgate is like all 1v1 fps like Quake that tried to revive the genre, but in the end they do thing the same so they feel like clones. They have 1 mega health and big armors, and the player that can grab them knows when they'll respawn and he basically has free kills for the next 3 minutes. On the other hand in Half-Life there's no megahealth, health and armor are spread in small chunks all over the map so you have to move a lot and you feel you can hope to come back when you're behind. But all recent games do it like Quake with 1 big health. None of these recent games have succeded, not even the official Quake games.
Also in Quake I never liked how you had to constantly do calculations in your head to know when the items would respawn, and how you had to remember several timings at the same time. Sure it differentiates good players for bad ones but it's not fun. Strategy would be the same if the game told you timings of the items or at least give hints if you didn't grab them the last time, but the game wouldn't require to do all the math in your head. It's not exactly the same in strategy games but you still need a feel for when a unit will finish producing to start another one. It wouldn't make it less strategic if the game told you some of the timings.
For me the game that scratches the strategy itch the most at the moment is Mechabellum. It's positively addicting. Kinda-but-not-really turn-based but more like a simulation where you replay the same scenario over and over with different variables. I really can't believe that such a simple concept could be so good. You still have economy, tech etc. just no micro at all since the units do the thing themselves.
Basically, how it works is that you choose your "leader" to say which dictates your 2 starting unit types, initial health and some minor bonus (more health on units, faster units, more resources every turn, more resources at start etc.) and you proceed to the game. In the game you get 2 phases: deployment phase and action phase. In the deployment phase you set up your units, can unlock 1 more unit type (everyone has access to the same units) and buy 2 more units. You can also spend resources on upgrading units or buying single-use stuff like shield to protect your units from damage or a sentry missile that'll fire at nearby enemies. After the deployment is done the units fight each other and the winning side deals damage to the enemy depending on whatever is left of their army. Then the next round starts, where at the beginning you can buy some global upgrade" from a pool of random ones. Each round you have more resources to spend and this continues until one player concedes or has lost all health (one important thing to note is that you can't reposition your units between rounds, unless you have specific upgrades).
Simple yet brilliant, you really need to think about unit positioning, their speed, range and all the strategy involved in countering your opponent's unit composition, flanking, protecting from flanking, sacrificing some health in one round to gather intel and have better counter next round etc.
On June 17 2023 22:03 chuky500 wrote: For me, the annoying parts are: -you always play in the dark, when you see the army in the minimap the enemy is coming for you.
Oh yeah this one I agree with I noticed the field of vision of units seems to be really low still, a lot of RTS have incredibly small field of vision and I'm not sure I understand why that's necessary or good as you can only see units when they're right in your face and constantly need to micro scouts to see anything (and often lose the scouting units in the process), increasing the luck factor (may be even simply unable to scout enemy base etc, which also increases luck factor). Interestingly War3 is an exception to that during daytime o0 and NE can see far at night after upgrade. Aoe2 has ridiculously small fields of vision it's annoying.
Many of the things people complain about here was solved in Warhammer 40000 dawn of war II. It had clear map objectives. Less macro, worked wonderfully in team games etc. So if the common complaints were solved in that and to a lesser degree Company of Heroes, why are they not the standard?
For me the most joy in RTS is usually found in the single player experience. Where you are learning new things and have to solve for new situations. PvP tends to boil down to the same experience over and over and thus I quit when I don't want to optimize that any longer. For me that is always the biggest attraction in the DotA clone genre, each game will be different enough that it feels unique when playing it even though the path is known.
The RTS games I recall are when something strange and interesting happened. I still recall some SC2 game I won with a hidden base and pure Zealots early in WoL. That is the type of experience that needs to be rewarded or it needs to be much more casual to play. Games like Hearthstone or Dota Auto Chess don't require constant focus to play and thus is more rewarding with less effort. At the floor level of it there is a lot of fun to be had, while I personally don't enjoy them at the top level.
On June 18 2023 00:43 Yurie wrote: PvP tends to boil down to the same experience over and over and thus I quit when I don't want to optimize that any longer. For me that is always the biggest attraction in the DotA clone genre, each game will be different enough that it feels unique when playing it even though the path is known.
That's why I always say for me the most important thing or one of, is the quality of balance allowing for as much of a plethora of openings as possible and follow ups mid game and late/endgame. If the balance is lackluster and you only have a few builds and cheeses possible (into similar mid/late/endgame compositions and situations) it gets repetitive and the game is played out in tactics instead of strategy, players have similar styles etc. This is likely harder to do when you're making a assymetrical game but if you make it, amazing. If you think of balance as 50% winrates only as far as I'm concerned game is moot lol but I think all devs know balance isn't that simplistic (heads or tails??^^).
If you can target a few dozen of possible openings per player (significant variations) at least on a given map and match up, each into at least a bunch of different midgames which themselves lead to at least a few different late/endgames (in terms of of build/macro) you'd have enough possibilities that no 2 games would feel quite the same and each 2 players can give quite different matches. Hard to do but the only way to make it is to have it as a target I'd say. Is it impossible? I don't know : D Is even better possible, with hundreds of openings into dozens of midgames and lategames??
Big question mark I guess but as a RTS player that's what I'd say about RTS design, make it as good a strategy game as you can : o The rules don't have to be necessarily complicated, it's in the balance, like Go shows. (it's not just about go being symetrical, a lot of symetrical games don't have anywhere close to the possibilities of go. Symetrical RTSs don't necessarily have the complexity of BW either, or mirror matchups. Well of course mirror matchups in a assymetrical game aren't necessarily as complex as in a symetrical game when the factions are designed to play against the other factions but this should still also be a target etc). This has been my criticism with even BW from the start as I got better at 1v1, it's too much about control (which can be cool but =>) too little about strategy.
Reading through this page alone I think gives a few clues on the state of RTS's. Different people have so many different expectations on how the core mechanics of this sort of game should be working to be fun, that it is rather hard to have a game that pleases everyone or at least ticks several significant boxes for a lot of people.
On June 18 2023 01:29 KobraKay wrote: Reading through this page alone I think gives a few clues on the state of RTS's. Different people have so many different expectations on how the core mechanics of this sort of game should be working to be fun, that it is rather hard to have a game that pleases everyone or at least ticks several significant boxes for a lot of people.
True but I think, in the end that's just our expectations and then the devs may just surprise us in some ways with their own vision of the game and maybe we just like it quite a bit while it is different from something we'd expect will see.
EPT
