|
The encouragement is one thing. However, if there isn't a proper defenders advantage + slow production speed you can still be strongly encouraged to move out on the map, lose one fight and then the game is over.
Thus, I think it's essential that you design and balance the game around it being )"okay" to lose fights. Losing a fight shouldn't result in your army power 30-60 seconds into the future being significantly worse than the opponent. (Especially not if combined with defenders advantage)
I agree that it should be balanced around some form of "it is ok to not be as efficient as possible in every figth", but i am not sure how to do that in the best way. Defenders advantage is a scary thing, because if you have a more sandboxy approach like in starcraft, all you really are doing is give one faction the opportunity to turtle because they'll have the stronger endgame.
Production speed is only relevant insofar how it relates to unit speeds (so how long does it take to run from your base to the other). Unless you have some kind of mechanic which allows someone to build faster based on units they just lost or whatever, that could be a thought.
Mobas (and lots of other games) ofc have a respawn mechanic, probably not something you'd want in an rts, though maybe one could experiment with it in some way.
I agree, but I also think a lot part of this is that you almost rarely have 2 army parts that efficiently can battle each other at the same time. Efficiently here being defined as a combination of cost efficiency + territorial benefit of winning an engagement.
So if you win a fight, it may be cost-ineffective, but you gain access to a ressurce which will help you in the future. In this case it could be beneficial/effective for both players to willingly enter the battle. Even if player A knows he will lose the battle, he can trade cost-effectively in the process and thus make player B pay to gain the terroritory.
Generally speaking, my preference for obtaining this type of gameplay is to ensure players have "bases" multiple parts around the map and can position static-defense + strong positional units that can trade cost effectively against almost any number of units.
What you don't want is scenarios where a few defensively positioned units gets oneshotted by a deadball army and thus gets killed before killing anything them selves.
Well yeah, that is what i reference when i say that there often is some asymmetrical burden, one army having map control over the other. That in itself is anti pvp, you rather wait until you have the 'better' army than trying much with your current one outside of some harass here and there. Spreading the game out enough is a decent way to combat that on high lvl, but i am honestly more concerned with how 95% of the playerbase plays the game, they need to "play the game" too, and imo you only get there when the game is less sandboxy and has stronger game mechanics which push players into certain actions.
I have no good idea how to really make sure that both sides can be active at all times in a highly macro orientated rts / oldschool rts.
Also not a fan. I think you want to encourage as much as player-vs-player interaction as possible in a game. Every action you spend killing AI Monsters are action you could be spending microing against the opponent. Overall a poor band-aid fix.
Well the idea here is to make the two players interact, just like in a moba both laners need to cs, which in theory takes away from interacting vs each other, but as a mechanic it actually makes them be in the same area and thus interact. But yeah, depends a lot on implementation.
|
8751 Posts
We believe it’s a mistake to simplify the game for the sake of making the game easier to play. Our goal is to remove the “tedious clicks” required to play a traditional RTS, but we absolutely don’t want to remove any clicks that are fun to play with and master over time.
Here are example high level questions we have for ourselves:
What are the tedious, unnecessary things that just have been done in RTS because it’s always been this way?
I hope for SG that they're willing to let 1v1 have more "tedious" actions and that 3v3 and co-op are where other players will land.
I think if you make a sports analogy, casual players don't want to run so much, so they play on literally half the field/court/pitch, or they play on smaller ones while pros play on bigger ones. People don't care that they can't do what the pros do and they don't even attempt to do so except in small ways here and there, not the entire game.
I'm not 100% sure how much FGS wants to preserve the established tradition of pro RTS play or if they're willing to say "most people don't like running so we're forcing even the pro players to play in smaller spaces so there isn't as much running" which I guess that can still be an entertaining sport but it's very different in nature and a lot more is sacrificed than what's immediately discernible.
So I think giving the game a dual nature is the way to go. You've got BW providing this massive body of evidence that it can work, that you can have this insanely difficult and tedious competitive mode which people love to watch but then they play 3v3 BGH or arcade mode themselves (or they're content to play the competitive mode at a much lower skill level). Giving up on this proven concept and trying to get everyone playing the exact same game / game mode is a huge mistake imo. Not that it can't make for a great game, but to give up on a core part of what made BW so good is kinda crazy, given how successful and enduring it has been as a game and esport.
|
Nony to clarify, that quote is from david kim in regards to the "next gen rts" he wants to make with his comany "uncapped games", it's not coming from frost giant. I just included it because there was a recent push to an old thread about his project, and we might see some of the game soonish too.
Outside of that, i completely disagree with you and imo you fall exactly under a pov which buys into the "tedious, unnecessary things that just have been done in RTS because it’s always been this way".
Which ofc makes sense, we are on a starcraft website afterall, there will be a big, big bias towards elements of bw or sc2, naturally.
But when you try to think of rts, and how to best bring it into modernity, you have to change things from these old designs (which partly are a staple only because you couldn't have done it any other way even if you wanted back then).
You don't innovate by shackling yourself to the past, you innovate by deconstructing the past and making something new and fresh out of it. I hope David Kim is able to do so.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
On June 27 2023 01:13 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +We believe it’s a mistake to simplify the game for the sake of making the game easier to play. Our goal is to remove the “tedious clicks” required to play a traditional RTS, but we absolutely don’t want to remove any clicks that are fun to play with and master over time.
Here are example high level questions we have for ourselves:
What are the tedious, unnecessary things that just have been done in RTS because it’s always been this way? I hope for SG that they're willing to let 1v1 have more "tedious" actions and that 3v3 and co-op are where other players will land. I think if you make a sports analogy, casual players don't want to run so much, so they play on literally half the field/court/pitch, or they play on smaller ones while pros play on bigger ones. People don't care that they can't do what the pros do and they don't even attempt to do so except in small ways here and there, not the entire game. I'm not 100% sure how much FGS wants to preserve the established tradition of pro RTS play or if they're willing to say "most people don't like running so we're forcing even the pro players to play in smaller spaces so there isn't as much running" which I guess that can still be an entertaining sport but it's very different in nature and a lot more is sacrificed than what's immediately discernible. So I think giving the game a dual nature is the way to go. You've got BW providing this massive body of evidence that it can work, that you can have this insanely difficult and tedious competitive mode which people love to watch but then they play 3v3 BGH or arcade mode themselves (or they're content to play the competitive mode at a much lower skill level). Giving up on this proven concept and trying to get everyone playing the exact same game / game mode is a huge mistake imo. Not that it can't make for a great game, but to give up on a core part of what made BW so good is kinda crazy, given how successful and enduring it has been as a game and esport.
You do bring up some interesting points. One common argument some people have is that "you should be able to play the same game as the pros just like soccer or football" but now that you mention it, you're right, when you play those games you aren't actually playing the same game as the pros. It's most common to play variations, and very rarely do people actually play the same game.
That being said I disagree that BW did a good job with that. I think sc2 did a much better job, not only inclusing team games but later on the arcade and importantly co-op.
Though I also agree with The_Red_Viper that some things shouldn't be tedius for the sake of it.
I remember a lot of people complained that sc2 had unlimited unit selection. When the only reason BW had it was because the game couldn't handle unlimited selection. And yet some people consistently complained about it because it "made the game easier" Which it did. Because it doesn't need to be hard, at least not in that "tedious repetitive way". What they needed to do (and eventually did), was rewarding players for not having all units together in 1 hotkey,
Still, I agree that " most people don't like running so we're forcing even the pro players to play in smaller spaces so there isn't as much running" wouldn't be a good thing for the game.
|
On June 27 2023 01:13 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +We believe it’s a mistake to simplify the game for the sake of making the game easier to play. Our goal is to remove the “tedious clicks” required to play a traditional RTS, but we absolutely don’t want to remove any clicks that are fun to play with and master over time.
Here are example high level questions we have for ourselves:
What are the tedious, unnecessary things that just have been done in RTS because it’s always been this way? I hope for SG that they're willing to let 1v1 have more "tedious" actions and that 3v3 and co-op are where other players will land. I think if you make a sports analogy, casual players don't want to run so much, so they play on literally half the field/court/pitch, or they play on smaller ones while pros play on bigger ones. People don't care that they can't do what the pros do and they don't even attempt to do so except in small ways here and there, not the entire game. I'm not 100% sure how much FGS wants to preserve the established tradition of pro RTS play or if they're willing to say "most people don't like running so we're forcing even the pro players to play in smaller spaces so there isn't as much running" which I guess that can still be an entertaining sport but it's very different in nature and a lot more is sacrificed than what's immediately discernible. So I think giving the game a dual nature is the way to go. You've got BW providing this massive body of evidence that it can work, that you can have this insanely difficult and tedious competitive mode which people love to watch but then they play 3v3 BGH or arcade mode themselves (or they're content to play the competitive mode at a much lower skill level). Giving up on this proven concept and trying to get everyone playing the exact same game / game mode is a huge mistake imo. Not that it can't make for a great game, but to give up on a core part of what made BW so good is kinda crazy, given how successful and enduring it has been as a game and esport.
Yup and this is what I think recent devs have had backwards. Too much pandering to casual players, it's one of the main things that ruined SC2. I'd talk to the devs about the game and they would come back at me quoting diamond league/master league stats (where the level of execution is completely different), it just makes no sense. The outcome ended up being immo sentry allins until WoL ended to avoid going lategame vs BL/infestor (and that's just 1 example). They were basically balancing to appease reddit and players would just rinse and repeat with the same b.os, TvP scv/viking allin, PvZ immo allin etc etc. That's just a terrible experience, then people wonder why so many of the WoL players ended up quitting.
To me this is the wrong approach to take to start your creation process off of, I might be wrong ofc but we'll see. "Casual friendly RTS" is contradictory to me because it goes against the essence of what RTS is. If you make a good game people will end up finding/creating casual friendly stuff to play. That process will take place organically. You need to attract high end players/competitors to your game and have them stick around, everything else filters down from there.
Those tedious actions and the speed of execution/fluidity of movement is what separates the top players (and what fuels them to play the game) from everyone else, that's the foundation of RTS. A discussion could be had on what the right amount of that is tho. BW is art primarily because of that aspect, it gives you the freedom to express yourself through your gameplay.
|
On June 27 2023 01:13 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +We believe it’s a mistake to simplify the game for the sake of making the game easier to play. Our goal is to remove the “tedious clicks” required to play a traditional RTS, but we absolutely don’t want to remove any clicks that are fun to play with and master over time.
Here are example high level questions we have for ourselves:
What are the tedious, unnecessary things that just have been done in RTS because it’s always been this way? I hope for SG that they're willing to let 1v1 have more "tedious" actions and that 3v3 and co-op are where other players will land. I think if you make a sports analogy, casual players don't want to run so much, so they play on literally half the field/court/pitch, or they play on smaller ones while pros play on bigger ones. People don't care that they can't do what the pros do and they don't even attempt to do so except in small ways here and there, not the entire game. I'm not 100% sure how much FGS wants to preserve the established tradition of pro RTS play or if they're willing to say "most people don't like running so we're forcing even the pro players to play in smaller spaces so there isn't as much running" which I guess that can still be an entertaining sport but it's very different in nature and a lot more is sacrificed than what's immediately discernible. So I think giving the game a dual nature is the way to go. You've got BW providing this massive body of evidence that it can work, that you can have this insanely difficult and tedious competitive mode which people love to watch but then they play 3v3 BGH or arcade mode themselves (or they're content to play the competitive mode at a much lower skill level). Giving up on this proven concept and trying to get everyone playing the exact same game / game mode is a huge mistake imo. Not that it can't make for a great game, but to give up on a core part of what made BW so good is kinda crazy, given how successful and enduring it has been as a game and esport.
I agree. Balancing between the games for the 40 APM Bronze League hero, who plays two games after watching a tournament (and has zero resemblance to me), and Byun is simply impossible. We see how brutal the difference between Protoss professional players and top amateurs is.
But in all fairness, I don't think Frostgiant wants to produce such a game. They don't want the majority to only watch the game. They want everyone to play it and feel good. The problem is that in most PvP games, humans tend to be happy with a 65 to 70 percent win rate. Anything lower, and people tend to get annoyed or even toxic. That's a big reason why the battle royal format became so popular: winning is more stretched out, and nearly always someone performs and can be looked down upon.
A competitive 1v1 game without RNG or teammates to blame for losses is likely to not produce happy customers, no matter how good the game is. Starcraft worked because the "just play like Flash" argument simply works. You lose because you are worse most of the time, and skill matters more than in probably all other non-turn-based games.
Frostgiant won't have the same authorities, who claim the game is great and balanced.
|
Well yeah, that is what i reference when i say that there often is some asymmetrical burden, one army having map control over the other.
Assymetrical games can be great to watch. But ideally we don't create a neccesity for armies to be assymetrical in order to encourage the ideal gameplay. Rather, we want to create a game where the ideal gameplay happens as frequently as possible and where we do not force players into too narrow playstyle for the game to feel "great".
As I see it, players should generally invest a bit into strong positional units, static defense and spread them around to defend their bases while their main army forces being somewhat mobile. This type of gameplay doesn't work well in Sc2, siege tanks/lurkers don't do too well if left alone in small numbers. The closest type of unit I think that works well in small numbers are High Templars. In BW Dark Swam was very very efficient at creating this type of gameplay.
As you can probably guess though, this type of gameplay, multiple bases + decent sized main army + units spread to cover these bases --> you need large army supply. And I don't really think games like Immortals Gates of Pyre and Stormgate will effectively accomplish this because it appears they are reducing army size relative to Sc2/BW. Instead, I would want to do the opposite.
I hope David Kim's RTS goes the other direction and tries to go all-in on the best parts of Starcraft rather than "watering" down on everything.
Well the idea here is to make the two players interact, just like in a moba both laners need to cs, which in theory takes away from interacting vs each other, but as a mechanic it actually makes them be in the same area and thus interact.
Yep in a MOBA it's a very effective way and gives lots of depth to the overall gameplay. In RTS's, however, there are many more natural ways to encourage the ideal gameplay.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On June 27 2023 01:15 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Nony to clarify, that quote is from david kim in regards to the "next gen rts" he wants to make with his comany "uncapped games", it's not coming from frost giant. I just included it because there was a recent push to an old thread about his project, and we might see some of the game soonish too.
Outside of that, i completely disagree with you and imo you fall exactly under a pov which buys into the "tedious, unnecessary things that just have been done in RTS because it’s always been this way".
Which ofc makes sense, we are on a starcraft website afterall, there will be a big, big bias towards elements of bw or sc2, naturally.
But when you try to think of rts, and how to best bring it into modernity, you have to change things from these old designs (which partly are a staple only because you couldn't have done it any other way even if you wanted back then).
You don't innovate by shackling yourself to the past, you innovate by deconstructing the past and making something new and fresh out of it. I hope David Kim is able to do so.
Played casually as a kid, played tons of WC3 (my favourite all-time game on balance) and a ton of SC2 (which is up high too). Even I save much of my BW love for watching the big boys,
What are the things that make BW so great for me?
- Constant skirmishes all over the place. Big extended battles
- Lots of interesting units, good interactions some incredibly fun to micro, especially as compositions on either side start to pile up so you really gotta position and angle well.
- A good bit of opening/overall strat variety for a game that’s so old
I don’t think these are inalienably locked to a really mechanically bruising game, that someone can’t appeal to the same elements with something a little less sore on the auld wrists
If there’s still some decent macro, varied terrain and some room to manouvere and, outthink one’s opponent it can’t go too far wrong, interested to see what they come up with
Room to actually think might be nice. It really depends what we can DO with that time, if we have wider options.
I mean anyone who’s played more than a game or two has had games where a doom drop or mines, or a baneling runby has basically instantly won a game by virtue of our screen being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Partly because terrible terrible damage and adding yet more devastating harassment options, but it often doesn’t really feel you were outplayed, or outthought. You were that busy keeping up with the macro/multitask you just missed something
I do also dig the frenetic pace, when it’s fun it’s great. But a part of me feels it’s a bit too focused on pure multitasking and macro execution. And without that thinking room I guess offensive, proactive multitasking can frequently pay defends with the reactive multitasking it forces on the defender
Perhaps if it’s a little less crazy you could have more elaborate tactical feints than the usual ‘attack one place then attack somewhere else’ classic 1-2. Like the real top top boys can do more intricate things but most of the playerbase can’t do what a Maru can
|
Yup and this is what I think recent devs have had backwards. Too much pandering to casual players, it's one of the main things that ruined SC2.
I think Dustin Browder when he developed Sc2 had no idea about anything tbh. He thought it was great gameplay to have destructible rocks in your base. This is less about catering to casuals vs catering to top players. There was no understanding at competitive RTS game-design at any level when Sc2 was developed.
Today, it's very different. And I agree too many developers first think "how can we make the gameplay easier" as opposed to "how can we make the gameplay rewarding and 'inspiring'".
Partly because terrible terrible damage and adding yet more devastating harassment options, but it often doesn’t really feel you were outplayed, or outthought. You were that busy keeping up with the macro/multitask you just missed something
I do also dig the frenetic pace, when it’s fun it’s great. But a part of me feels it’s a bit too focused on pure multitasking and macro execution. And without that thinking room I guess offensive, proactive multitasking can frequently pay defends with the reactive multitasking it forces on the defender
Perhaps if it’s a little less crazy you could have more elaborate tactical feints than the usual ‘attack one place then attack somewhere else’ classic 1-2. Like the real top top boys can do more intricate things but most of the playerbase can’t do what a Maru can
I can understand where you coming from. However, I don't think you can go on compromise here. This is what competitive RTS games are about (not the terrible terrible damage part but the feeling of constantly being on and more and more multitasking).
In a MOBA game you can get better mechancially by improving your timings or your skillshto accuracy or knowledge of various interactions. In RTS you get better mechanically by getting faster. I think everyone has to accept that and acknowledge that your average Janna main in LOL probably will not enjoy that game.
However, I still believe there is a noticeable target group for who actually would enjoy a "next-gen" high-skillcap RTS games with lots of action and multitasking everywhere. While the game will always be "APM"-focussed there are ways to switch the focus of APM in different directions that a larger target group finds more rewarding.
I think there a million ways to go about redesigning various parts of Starcraft to make it better for new players and better higher level players as well.
|
On June 27 2023 01:50 [Phantom] wrote:
That being said I disagree that BW did a good job with that. I think sc2 did a much better job, not only inclusing team games but later on the arcade and importantly co-op.
What are you smoking sir? lol
Oh man i don't wanna get into it but sc2 did an awful job with team games AND arcade. Didn't even know there was an arcade tbh, the U.I. and social features were so bad. And team games never had a single good map to play on. Believe me, I tried to play 2v2 with various friends, and we clocked some games, but it was like getting water out of a coconut. Holy moley...
Anyway, I do feel like 1v1 will more or less be its own game. They've already been hinting at it with 3v3 featuring a more "MOBA" style, as well as heroes—unless this is just speculation that's been proliferated by various peeps.
Just need to be careful when gauging difficulty and skill ceilings as a viewer. Warcraft III looks easy when I watch it but when I play it it's quiiiite challenging. Especially when the fights go down. In terms of Stormgate, the game is already looking pretty interesting and reasonably complex in terms of actions and decisions (Warp prism esque micro, atlas unit shenanigans, medtech with 3 abilities and a small energy pool) and we've only seen like half of the first race.
There's gonna be some streamlined/QoL shit for sure, but I'm still predicting an intense and challenging game. Especially when 2 good players go at it.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On June 27 2023 03:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Yup and this is what I think recent devs have had backwards. Too much pandering to casual players, it's one of the main things that ruined SC2. I think Dustin Browder when he developed Sc2 had no idea about anything tbh. He thought it was great gameplay to have destructible rocks in your base. This is less about catering to casuals vs catering to top players. There was no understanding at competitive RTS game-design at any level when Sc2 was developed. Today, it's very different. And I agree too many developers first think "how can we make the gameplay easier" as opposed to "how can we make the gameplay rewarding and 'inspiring'". Show nested quote +Partly because terrible terrible damage and adding yet more devastating harassment options, but it often doesn’t really feel you were outplayed, or outthought. You were that busy keeping up with the macro/multitask you just missed something
I do also dig the frenetic pace, when it’s fun it’s great. But a part of me feels it’s a bit too focused on pure multitasking and macro execution. And without that thinking room I guess offensive, proactive multitasking can frequently pay defends with the reactive multitasking it forces on the defender
Perhaps if it’s a little less crazy you could have more elaborate tactical feints than the usual ‘attack one place then attack somewhere else’ classic 1-2. Like the real top top boys can do more intricate things but most of the playerbase can’t do what a Maru can I can understand where you coming from. However, I don't think you can go on compromise here. This is what competitive RTS games are about (not the terrible terrible damage part but the feeling of constantly being on and more and more multitasking). In a MOBA game you can get better mechancially by improving your timings or your skillshto accuracy or knowledge of various interactions. In RTS you get better mechanically by getting faster. I think everyone has to accept that and acknowledge that your average Janna main in LOL probably will not enjoy that game. However, I still believe there is a noticeable target group for who actually would enjoy a "next-gen" high-skillcap RTS games with lots of action and multitasking everywhere. While the game will always be "APM"-focussed there are ways to switch the focus of APM in different directions that a larger target group finds more rewarding. I think there a million ways to go about redesigning various parts of Starcraft to make it better for new players and better higher level players as well.
Agreed, my post wasn’t super clear but unforgiving doesn’t = good all the time.
I’m really criticising terrible terrible damage, I think especially at lower levels it actually precludes much skirmishing. Keeping on top of macro and babysitting an army that can literally die in 5 seconds if you’re not watching
Something a little less brutal, but with a high ceiling and I could dig that.
Would it be more fun to have some breathing/thinking room and use that APM to constantly battle in 3/4 locations in a battle of wits and minds in a veritable slugfest? Versus battling a demanding macro system where you can outplay your opponent for 95% of a game and lose to something you missed?
It will only work if the QoL tweaks and end of terrible terrible damage (thank fuck) give room for that. If things like the rumoured creep camps and other map features give some areas to tactically battle over.
If you can push the gameplay in the direction of less volatility, less frustration and more into rewarding fun play and consistently better play, in a nutshell. Perhaps I’m a little too influenced by WC3 but a much inferior player can take a hypothetical engagement versus even a top pro with enough repeats. No amount of repeats is going to see a non-elite player win one against Happy. In that sense making a game hypothetically easier can actually stretch a skill gap.
I’m not a fan of the rumoured removal of upgrades though, I do think they add depth, gotta add that though
Hey I still love SC2 I’m not gonna throw it too hard under the bus either, but I think many love it despite these aforementioned frustrations not because of it.
|
On June 27 2023 05:01 WombaT wrote:
Would it be more fun to have some breathing/thinking room and use that APM to constantly battle in 3/4 locations in a battle of wits and minds in a veritable slugfest? Versus battling a demanding macro system where you can outplay your opponent for 95% of a game and lose to something you missed?
Right because, we're in for RTS supposedly we want to be playing a game that focuses on strategy, what sounds more like a strategy game? If you lose to something you missed, it's kind of like you're playing a FPS or some speed, trick game instead of a RTS. And I love FPS but that's not what I'm looking for in RTS^^ Tricks like that have their place in a RTS to the extent that they don't cost or earn you everything and become the main focus of the game imo (not to mention they involve a sizeable luck factor). That's why I like stuff like "slower pace" and more durable workers, and yeah that's also why I promptly gave up on SC2, reached goal fast and easy and left tbh. War3 was a lot harder to me.
|
On June 27 2023 03:10 Hildegard wrote:Show nested quote +We believe it’s a mistake to simplify the game for the sake of making the game easier to play. Our goal is to remove the “tedious clicks” required to play a traditional RTS, but we absolutely don’t want to remove any clicks that are fun to play with and master over time.
Here are example high level questions we have for ourselves:
What are the tedious, unnecessary things that just have been done in RTS because it’s always been this way? But in all fairness, I don't think Frostgiant wants to produce such a game. They don't want the majority to only watch the game. They want everyone to play it and feel good. The problem is that in most PvP games, humans tend to be happy with a 65 to 70 percent win rate. Anything lower, and people tend to get annoyed or even toxic. That's a big reason why the battle royal format became so popular: winning is more stretched out, and nearly always someone performs and can be looked down upon. A competitive 1v1 game without RNG or teammates to blame for losses is likely to not produce happy customers, no matter how good the game is. Starcraft worked because the " just play like Flash" argument simply works. You lose because you are worse most of the time, and skill matters more than in probably all other non-turn-based games. Frostgiant won't have the same authorities, who claim the game is great and balanced.
I don't quite get this line of argument. What about Chess? People don't mind a 50% winrate at that. It's more popular than ever. Or if it has to be real time, what about Street Fighter, or Smash, or basically any 1vs1 competitive game? Saying that they all go against human psychology seems a stretch.
Of course, it might be that Battle Royales and MOBAS are indeed more casual friendly as you can blame others, which translates into bigger audiences. But that doesn't make 1vs1 games unviable - especially not for what is essentially an indie company, who won't even need that many players to succeed.
|
8751 Posts
Yeah I meant to write that I was aware that quote was from David Kim and for his game but I forgot to make that edit.
So yeah I think SG is actually taking the wiser approach. The main thing I worry about SG is that they don’t fully embrace this duality, so they dumb down the macro or “tedious tasks” in competitive 1v1 too much.
I haven’t had a chance to read all the latest replies in this thread but another thought that occurred to me is that even League has a simpler version of its game with ARAM. There’s a universal urge to play a lighter/simpler version of a competitive and challenging game. Trying to get everyone playing the exact same rule set, a rule set which can be both very competitive or very casual, is extremely difficult and imo unnecessary.
|
Assymetrical games can be great to watch. But ideally we don't create a neccesity for armies to be assymetrical in order to encourage the ideal gameplay. Rather, we want to create a game where the ideal gameplay happens as frequently as possible and where we do not force players into too narrow playstyle for the game to feel "great".
As I see it, players should generally invest a bit into strong positional units, static defense and spread them around to defend their bases while their main army forces being somewhat mobile. This type of gameplay doesn't work well in Sc2, siege tanks/lurkers don't do too well if left alone in small numbers. The closest type of unit I think that works well in small numbers are High Templars. In BW Dark Swam was very very efficient at creating this type of gameplay.
I honestly really dislike dark swarm from a design perspective, it feels like a bandaid solution to help zerg be able to play the game at all vs too much ranged dps coming in. It also fundamentally stops dynamic interactions, you see a swarm, you run from it (i know there are exceptions, but generally that is what the spell is designed to do).
It kinda works out in bw, but that game largely works (imo) because of all the things you could potentially do being impossible to do all at once. That is something bw players take pride in, the game needs a strong sense of prioritization skills, but for the gameplay experience for most everyone this is just a lot of busywork with very little direct, fun interactions possible. THAT IS WHY most people rather played other modes or custom games, the core game isn't fun for anyone who doesn't wanna grind out the ability to even play the game in a way where it makes some sense.
Totally outdated, nothing you could make today except for appealing to the 500 people who have conditioned themselves to love the gameplay. (this sounds more negative than i mean it, i had my fun for a while in it too, but i think the love you'll find for it especially on these forums are so hard coded that it is difficult to have an interesting conversation about the potential of rts if one allowed it to evolve).
Yep in a MOBA it's a very effective way and gives lots of depth to the overall gameplay. In RTS's, however, there are many more natural ways to encourage the ideal gameplay.
I disagree, because imo you also mostly come at this from a perspective of a person who already understands the general rts ideas to a degree where if you played a new game, you'd generally be able to follow these concepts.
I think most people don't care about rts exactly because these concepts, the mental framework one has to have for rts is so difficult to get into. I will repeat what i said 2-3 times already, i think it's a core idea, new players generally want to use their units, micro them, look at them and do something with them. What does a 'good coach' tell them? "Just a move and focus on your macro". THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Now you could say that the same is true to an extent in a moba, "don't throw all your spells at the enemy, focus on csing". That is also true to an extent, but the balance is just way different. Mobas did well in (and i think you said something like that before) focusing on what is fun, rts games so far imo do not do that very well at all.
That is imo where david kim's quote comes in, reducing clicks which are tedious, focusing on clicks which are fun. At the end of the day playing ANY video game (well, at least real time) isn't more than that if we reduce it to its bare minimum.
@Wombat:
Right, you mention a lot of things i'd say too about bw or sc2. I talk a lot against them in this thread because i think that the fundamental design idea are oftentimes outdated if one really wanted to make a new kind of rts game which can appeal to a broader audience. A lot of bw/sc2 fans will imo only superficially engage with this abstract (tbf, it is vague) idea, there will be instant alarm clocks, WHAT A GAME FOR CASUALS? I mean a lot of bw people still think sc2 is way more casual and 'lesser' because you don't have to have 500 apm to even play the game somewhat decently. It's mostly just posturing as far as i am concerned, and has very little to do with what you can make if you design a game from the ground up with ideas which help
1) making the game approachable (which mostly means, allow bad players to play the game in its essence in a way which is fun) and
2) create enough space for very skilled players
1 is important to make people play the game, 2 is important to give the game enough longevity.
I think sc2 and bw do a lot of things well, there is a lot to learn from either game, and i also do not believe that ANY game will ever be without its flaws if one really engages with it for a decent amount of time. Game developers only can do so much, players will always break the game, create situations which are silly, there is no way around that for the most part.
So for what sc2 and bw were and are, they are great games, but they are still games which imo cannot be the cornerstone of next lvl rts games, for that a lot of their design decisions are too archaic.
|
I disagree, because imo you also mostly come at this from a perspective of a person who already understands the general rts ideas to a degree where if you played a new game, you'd generally be able to follow these concepts.
I think most people don't care about rts exactly because these concepts, the mental framework one has to have for rts is so difficult to get into. I will repeat what i said 2-3 times already, i think it's a core idea, new players generally want to use their units, micro them, look at them and do something with them. What does a 'good coach' tell them? "Just a move and focus on your macro". THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Now you could say that the same is true to an extent in a moba, "don't throw all your spells at the enemy, focus on csing". That is also true to an extent, but the balance is just way different. Mobas did well in (and i think you said something like that before) focusing on what is fun, rts games so far imo do not do that very well at all.
That is imo where david kim's quote comes in, reducing clicks which are tedious, focusing on clicks which are fun. At the end of the day playing ANY video game (well, at least real time) isn't more than that if we reduce it to its bare minimum.
I meant in the context of encourage action/moving out on the map. Not so much about about the mechanics of the game. Neutral monsters aren't required in RTS games to encourage "things happening".
|
On June 29 2023 04:08 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I disagree, because imo you also mostly come at this from a perspective of a person who already understands the general rts ideas to a degree where if you played a new game, you'd generally be able to follow these concepts.
I think most people don't care about rts exactly because these concepts, the mental framework one has to have for rts is so difficult to get into. I will repeat what i said 2-3 times already, i think it's a core idea, new players generally want to use their units, micro them, look at them and do something with them. What does a 'good coach' tell them? "Just a move and focus on your macro". THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Now you could say that the same is true to an extent in a moba, "don't throw all your spells at the enemy, focus on csing". That is also true to an extent, but the balance is just way different. Mobas did well in (and i think you said something like that before) focusing on what is fun, rts games so far imo do not do that very well at all.
That is imo where david kim's quote comes in, reducing clicks which are tedious, focusing on clicks which are fun. At the end of the day playing ANY video game (well, at least real time) isn't more than that if we reduce it to its bare minimum.
I meant in the context of encourage action/moving out on the map. Not so much about about the mechanics of the game. Neutral monsters aren't required in RTS games to encourage "things happening".
I realize that, my point is this isn't really encouraging the gameplay for people who have no idea about 'high lvl' concepts of rts. The struggle with rts is to understand when to attack, why, with what while mostly focusing on macro if not wanting to fall behind in power potential.
So it's twofold:
- new players do not know what to do, AT ALL.
- when they go with their guts, the controlling of units is a net negative, the fun part of the game is something they shouldn't do if they wanna win more games.
The first part is about "encouraging" the core gameplay. If you don't know what to do, you are not experiencing it. Other games solve this by creating some form of gameplay force which makes people way, way, way more likely to actually interact with each other. It almost forces them to. Not specifically, because you can stand in your spawn in csgo too and not do anything, but realistically the game design makes people 'play the game'. In starcraft that is not the case, it is just extremely sandboxy. I already said that this can be seen as a strength, and i personally enjoy that too, but we are all talking from a perspective of knowledge here, having watched many pro games, having some understanding of the meta through that and playing a lot. Most people wouldn't do that, they'd play a few games, have no fun because in most these games they didn't have "the core experience", and give up. That is imo what a next gen rts really has to solve, on top of the 2nd part where "tedious clicks" (arguably mostly the macro) should be reduced so more clicks go into the fun parts, where you are not discouraged from the fun unless you have 200 apm to spare.
|
On June 29 2023 05:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2023 04:08 Hider wrote:I disagree, because imo you also mostly come at this from a perspective of a person who already understands the general rts ideas to a degree where if you played a new game, you'd generally be able to follow these concepts.
I think most people don't care about rts exactly because these concepts, the mental framework one has to have for rts is so difficult to get into. I will repeat what i said 2-3 times already, i think it's a core idea, new players generally want to use their units, micro them, look at them and do something with them. What does a 'good coach' tell them? "Just a move and focus on your macro". THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Now you could say that the same is true to an extent in a moba, "don't throw all your spells at the enemy, focus on csing". That is also true to an extent, but the balance is just way different. Mobas did well in (and i think you said something like that before) focusing on what is fun, rts games so far imo do not do that very well at all.
That is imo where david kim's quote comes in, reducing clicks which are tedious, focusing on clicks which are fun. At the end of the day playing ANY video game (well, at least real time) isn't more than that if we reduce it to its bare minimum.
I meant in the context of encourage action/moving out on the map. Not so much about about the mechanics of the game. Neutral monsters aren't required in RTS games to encourage "things happening". I realize that, my point is this isn't really encouraging the gameplay for people who have no idea about 'high lvl' concepts of rts. The struggle with rts is to understand when to attack, why, with what while mostly focusing on macro if not wanting to fall behind in power potential. So it's twofold: - new players do not know what to do, AT ALL. - when they go with their guts, the controlling of units is a net negative, the fun part of the game is something they shouldn't do if they wanna win more games. The first part is about "encouraging" the core gameplay. If you don't know what to do, you are not experiencing it. Other games solve this by creating some form of gameplay force which makes people way, way, way more likely to actually interact with each other. It almost forces them to. Not specifically, because you can stand in your spawn in csgo too and not do anything, but realistically the game design makes people 'play the game'. In starcraft that is not the case, it is just extremely sandboxy. I already said that this can be seen as a strength, and i personally enjoy that too, but we are all talking from a perspective of knowledge here, having watched many pro games, having some understanding of the meta through that and playing a lot. Most people wouldn't do that, they'd play a few games, have no fun because in most these games they didn't have "the core experience", and give up. That is imo what a next gen rts really has to solve, on top of the 2nd part where "tedious clicks" (arguably mostly the macro) should be reduced so more clicks go into the fun parts, where you are not discouraged from the fun unless you have 200 apm to spare.
Yes I am not referencing starcraft here but the next-gen RTS game. I think you can make it feel much more intuitive for new players to figure out how to move. My vision from the genre is that essentially from the get-go players have access to a small army and uses that to go around the map to secure bases for resource collection.
Interactions will happen naturally because the opponent will do the same thing and you will also try to prevent/delay your opponent from setting up his bases. At high levels of play fights will take place simultaneously at multiple parts around the map. At lower levels of play, the more natural playstyle will be players just fighting over 1 or 2 central locations.
I don't see why this type of gameplay - when tweaked properly - wouldn't feel at least as intuitive as jungle creeps.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
I mean I know ‘casual’ games are pretty denigrated but Fortnite absolutely knocks it out of the park
It’s pretty intuitive what you’re meant to do, you’ll just do it at drastically different levels. Scales all the way up, pro level build fights are absolutely crazy to observe. Lowest level you can still have a decent time
Outside of learning good drops and loot routes, getting better at the game is just following your instincts on what’s fun, but improving (or not in my case)
Plus it’s got possibly the best developer integrated custom games system on the market at the minute.
|
I don't see why this type of gameplay - when tweaked properly - wouldn't feel at least as intuitive as jungle creeps.
I mean, ANYTHING can work as this 'force' i was trying to describe if implemented properly :D But as i am not convinced that this jungle system really does enough, i am also not convinced that claiming bases around the map would be the best way either. But sure, it ofc depends on all the other design choices, this is just too vague an idea to make any strong statements about it.
I mean I know ‘casual’ games are pretty denigrated but Fortnite absolutely knocks it out of the park
Right, fortnite is another example of a popular game which does this really well. Battle royle in general is good at it, with strong points of interest, plus the area getting smaller and smaller. Fortnite does it the best because it is a lot more dynamic and gives people a ton of tools to traverse the map and interact in fun ways.
I think most hardcore starcraft fans won't like to entertain the idea that rts might need a big guiding factor for gameplay, but to me at least it is the #1 reason (again, in isolation it ofc isn't sufficient) people rather play other games, it is imo a necessary element of modern game design. You just want your players, no matter the skill lvl (most importantly the players who just try your game out) to experience the core of your game instantly, to allow them to have fun instantly. If your game fails at that, you do something wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
