On December 13 2023 05:54 Hider wrote: There are enough ego-driven MOBA players who find enjoyment in outplays and carrying, and an amazing competitive RTS would probably appeal better to them than any MOBA.
But currently the RTS games are so flawed, mediocre and uninnovative that MOBA-ego-players still find more enjoyment playing Yasuo or equivalent than learning an RTS.
Ego driven players will never thrive long term in a 1 on 1 environment. Be it chess, the slowest option that comes to mind. Or the latest iteration of quake, the fastest option I can think of.
This is because after losing enough times, there are no more excuses,and the ego of said player HAS to take the hit. You cant win everytime. And you cant blame balance every time. You CAN however blame your "shitty teammates" for every loss. Ego players thrive in MOBA because of the additional excuses available to protect the ego. I would even go so far as to say ego players thrive in team situations where there arepeople around them that they can be the hero for.
I believe Ego-driven players get satisfaction from doing well individually and feeling like they are one of the main reasons they win. They enjoy mechanically rewarding champions - easy point and click low APM champions are typically considered boring.
Winning well getting carried is not particularly rewarding for them and not being able to carry because other people on your team is doing poorly is an incredibly frustrating experience.
The advantage RTS has over MOBA's in that they don't need to be teamgames to "work". MOBA's in contrast becomes arena games if played as 1v1 which is a completely different type of gamemode. RTS are still the same type of game in 1v1 and 4v4s.
Very well said, I agree with you here to a large extend. Personally I know at least two guys that tend to get salty while winning, if someone on the team is winning harder than them. Its a massive turn off for me, and the main reason I prefer 1 on 1.
The thing is, that the dota derivatives have that 1v1 portion included in (some) laning phase. Midlane for example. Or top in league. But what league offers, that starcraft just doesn't is a way out. If the ego player loses the lane, at least he can flame jungle. Or support. Or w/e. Theres still someone else to blame if ego player loses the 1v1 part of moba game. In 1v1 your stuck wich -mmr and a bit of self hatred. In my experience that self hatred, is something the ego player can't deal with.
It takes a fair bit of self analysis ans self motivation to keep coming back from losing an important match whete you gave it all you had. For everyone I mean, and in team games one can feed off the motivation of others. One can get inspired by a team mate making a joke, or dragging another along.
I think that an RTS could do quite well with a general audience, if it is easy to learn, and fun the play with your friends. I don't think that MOBA has any advantage over RTS outside of the team aspect. Well that... and overly sexualized characters.
On December 13 2023 05:54 Hider wrote: There are enough ego-driven MOBA players who find enjoyment in outplays and carrying, and an amazing competitive RTS would probably appeal better to them than any MOBA.
But currently the RTS games are so flawed, mediocre and uninnovative that MOBA-ego-players still find more enjoyment playing Yasuo or equivalent than learning an RTS.
Ego driven players will never thrive long term in a 1 on 1 environment. Be it chess, the slowest option that comes to mind. Or the latest iteration of quake, the fastest option I can think of.
This is because after losing enough times, there are no more excuses,and the ego of said player HAS to take the hit. You cant win everytime. And you cant blame balance every time. You CAN however blame your "shitty teammates" for every loss. Ego players thrive in MOBA because of the additional excuses available to protect the ego. I would even go so far as to say ego players thrive in team situations where there arepeople around them that they can be the hero for.
Ego takes different forms, some like to be perceived as skilled, some want to ruthlessly prove it. Also if you’re driven by ego I mean you somewhat have to share a bit of glory in a team, even if you won’t admit it.
I think games have shifted to be generally more team-based because it’s more social, partly for the reasons you outline.
But iirc chess is growing in popularity a bit. Speedrunning has grown a lot over the years and it’s a very solo activity, outside of knowledge sharing. Fortnite (or PubG to an extent) or FIFA are all huge games with their main competitive modes being 1v1. Which I think tends to be glossed over a bit here, albeit understandably by focusing on MOBAs due to their similarities with RTS
There’s a lot of people with differing psychological profiles out there, and I think sufficient folks enjoy challenging themselves mano o mano for a 1v1 game to prosper. Equally, on the other side of the ledger, teammates may shield the ego but they can also be incredibly exasperating and I personally hate solo queueing in most titles. Between toxicity and incompetence it’s not a pleasant experience.
One possibility we haven’t really discussed much come to think of it is maybe the team modes in Stormgate actually turn out to be the popular mode, that they do interesting things and balance them properly and the competitive scene shifts that way from the traditional 1v1, or they’re equally viable.
I had a lot of fun and mostly played AT in WC3, had some casual fun with it in SC2 but certain racial combos were clearly really advantaged due to certain limitations, too much for it to really feel it had much competitive potential. Protoss’ lack of speed and need to wall for example. A relative lack of hive mind experimentation and optimisation, and maps built upon that knowledge also being a factor.
If factions lack those kind of constraints that are exacerbated by multiple opponents perhaps the team modes end up having a lot of competitive potential too.
Online chess is having a big boom since the pandemic. They even have proper cheating scandals and everything. Proper esports. All that is missing really, is someone hosting a tournament and then pocketing the prize pool. Jokes aside though, all chess players I know of, know the self hatred that comes with losing chess games. And I believe that doesn't go well with a look at me Im the best attitude.
I do hope that stormgate team games are fun to play and easy to pick up. During the lifetime of sc2 I spent many hours introducing my friends to the game in various team formats. Out of all of them, only one ever stuck with it. He got hooked on the micro, picking apart people with terran drops. Hes even got into 1v1 ladder, and managed to beat me a couple of times. Now Im not good at starcraft. But I can thrash a newbie.
For me to enjoy and succeed in Stormgate, It will have to offer something that i can enjoy socially. At this point in my life I dont have the time to sit alone for hours on end,gitting gud at a new video game. Many games that are optimized for 1v1 and have a team mod like sc, wc3 or steel division, feel like the team mode was tacked on as an afterthought. Its just the same game, but with more players. Which tends to amplify the core issues of the game. Likeneed to wall on, slow protoss units. Or 500 supply of 3/3/3 carriers.
I would thoroughly enjoy it, if stormgate multiplayer offered aomething else than that. Something where the optimal play isnt to gang up on 1 of the opponents as early as possible. And that isnt the same game, just with more people. Where you can still be relevant to the outcome 25minutes in, even if you got rushed by 3 players at the 6 minute mark. Not sure if the development is going in that direction in any way, but that would be awesome.
On December 13 2023 05:54 Hider wrote: There are enough ego-driven MOBA players who find enjoyment in outplays and carrying, and an amazing competitive RTS would probably appeal better to them than any MOBA.
But currently the RTS games are so flawed, mediocre and uninnovative that MOBA-ego-players still find more enjoyment playing Yasuo or equivalent than learning an RTS.
Ego driven players will never thrive long term in a 1 on 1 environment. Be it chess, the slowest option that comes to mind. Or the latest iteration of quake, the fastest option I can think of.
This is because after losing enough times, there are no more excuses,and the ego of said player HAS to take the hit. You cant win everytime. And you cant blame balance every time. You CAN however blame your "shitty teammates" for every loss. Ego players thrive in MOBA because of the additional excuses available to protect the ego. I would even go so far as to say ego players thrive in team situations where there arepeople around them that they can be the hero for.
Ego takes different forms, some like to be perceived as skilled, some want to ruthlessly prove it. Also if you’re driven by ego I mean you somewhat have to share a bit of glory in a team, even if you won’t admit it.
I think games have shifted to be generally more team-based because it’s more social, partly for the reasons you outline.
But iirc chess is growing in popularity a bit. Speedrunning has grown a lot over the years and it’s a very solo activity, outside of knowledge sharing. Fortnite (or PubG to an extent) or FIFA are all huge games with their main competitive modes being 1v1. Which I think tends to be glossed over a bit here, albeit understandably by focusing on MOBAs due to their similarities with RTS
There’s a lot of people with differing psychological profiles out there, and I think sufficient folks enjoy challenging themselves mano o mano for a 1v1 game to prosper. Equally, on the other side of the ledger, teammates may shield the ego but they can also be incredibly exasperating and I personally hate solo queueing in most titles. Between toxicity and incompetence it’s not a pleasant experience.
One possibility we haven’t really discussed much come to think of it is maybe the team modes in Stormgate actually turn out to be the popular mode, that they do interesting things and balance them properly and the competitive scene shifts that way from the traditional 1v1, or they’re equally viable.
I had a lot of fun and mostly played AT in WC3, had some casual fun with it in SC2 but certain racial combos were clearly really advantaged due to certain limitations, too much for it to really feel it had much competitive potential. Protoss’ lack of speed and need to wall for example. A relative lack of hive mind experimentation and optimisation, and maps built upon that knowledge also being a factor.
If factions lack those kind of constraints that are exacerbated by multiple opponents perhaps the team modes end up having a lot of competitive potential too.
Online chess is having a big boom since the pandemic. They even have proper cheating scandals and everything. Proper esports. All that is missing really, is someone hosting a tournament and then pocketing the prize pool. Jokes aside though, all chess players I know of, know the self hatred that comes with losing chess games. And I believe that doesn't go well with a look at me Im the best attitude.
I do hope that stormgate team games are fun to play and easy to pick up. During the lifetime of sc2 I spent many hours introducing my friends to the game in various team formats. Out of all of them, only one ever stuck with it. He got hooked on the micro, picking apart people with terran drops. Hes even got into 1v1 ladder, and managed to beat me a couple of times. Now Im not good at starcraft. But I can thrash a newbie.
For me to enjoy and succeed in Stormgate, It will have to offer something that i can enjoy socially. At this point in my life I dont have the time to sit alone for hours on end,gitting gud at a new video game. Many games that are optimized for 1v1 and have a team mod like sc, wc3 or steel division, feel like the team mode was tacked on as an afterthought. Its just the same game, but with more players. Which tends to amplify the core issues of the game. Likeneed to wall on, slow protoss units. Or 500 supply of 3/3/3 carriers.
I would thoroughly enjoy it, if stormgate multiplayer offered aomething else than that. Something where the optimal play isnt to gang up on 1 of the opponents as early as possible. And that isnt the same game, just with more people. Where you can still be relevant to the outcome 25minutes in, even if you got rushed by 3 players at the 6 minute mark. Not sure if the development is going in that direction in any way, but that would be awesome.
I believe that it is to some degree for both 3vE (which is designed in from the beginning) and 3v3 which is also designed as a legit game mode and includes respawning heroes
On December 13 2023 05:54 Hider wrote: There are enough ego-driven MOBA players who find enjoyment in outplays and carrying, and an amazing competitive RTS would probably appeal better to them than any MOBA.
But currently the RTS games are so flawed, mediocre and uninnovative that MOBA-ego-players still find more enjoyment playing Yasuo or equivalent than learning an RTS.
Ego driven players will never thrive long term in a 1 on 1 environment. Be it chess, the slowest option that comes to mind. Or the latest iteration of quake, the fastest option I can think of.
This is because after losing enough times, there are no more excuses,and the ego of said player HAS to take the hit. You cant win everytime. And you cant blame balance every time. You CAN however blame your "shitty teammates" for every loss. Ego players thrive in MOBA because of the additional excuses available to protect the ego. I would even go so far as to say ego players thrive in team situations where there arepeople around them that they can be the hero for.
Ego takes different forms, some like to be perceived as skilled, some want to ruthlessly prove it. Also if you’re driven by ego I mean you somewhat have to share a bit of glory in a team, even if you won’t admit it.
I think games have shifted to be generally more team-based because it’s more social, partly for the reasons you outline.
But iirc chess is growing in popularity a bit. Speedrunning has grown a lot over the years and it’s a very solo activity, outside of knowledge sharing. Fortnite (or PubG to an extent) or FIFA are all huge games with their main competitive modes being 1v1. Which I think tends to be glossed over a bit here, albeit understandably by focusing on MOBAs due to their similarities with RTS
There’s a lot of people with differing psychological profiles out there, and I think sufficient folks enjoy challenging themselves mano o mano for a 1v1 game to prosper. Equally, on the other side of the ledger, teammates may shield the ego but they can also be incredibly exasperating and I personally hate solo queueing in most titles. Between toxicity and incompetence it’s not a pleasant experience.
One possibility we haven’t really discussed much come to think of it is maybe the team modes in Stormgate actually turn out to be the popular mode, that they do interesting things and balance them properly and the competitive scene shifts that way from the traditional 1v1, or they’re equally viable.
I had a lot of fun and mostly played AT in WC3, had some casual fun with it in SC2 but certain racial combos were clearly really advantaged due to certain limitations, too much for it to really feel it had much competitive potential. Protoss’ lack of speed and need to wall for example. A relative lack of hive mind experimentation and optimisation, and maps built upon that knowledge also being a factor.
If factions lack those kind of constraints that are exacerbated by multiple opponents perhaps the team modes end up having a lot of competitive potential too.
Online chess is having a big boom since the pandemic. They even have proper cheating scandals and everything. Proper esports. All that is missing really, is someone hosting a tournament and then pocketing the prize pool. Jokes aside though, all chess players I know of, know the self hatred that comes with losing chess games. And I believe that doesn't go well with a look at me Im the best attitude.
I do hope that stormgate team games are fun to play and easy to pick up. During the lifetime of sc2 I spent many hours introducing my friends to the game in various team formats. Out of all of them, only one ever stuck with it. He got hooked on the micro, picking apart people with terran drops. Hes even got into 1v1 ladder, and managed to beat me a couple of times. Now Im not good at starcraft. But I can thrash a newbie.
For me to enjoy and succeed in Stormgate, It will have to offer something that i can enjoy socially. At this point in my life I dont have the time to sit alone for hours on end,gitting gud at a new video game. Many games that are optimized for 1v1 and have a team mod like sc, wc3 or steel division, feel like the team mode was tacked on as an afterthought. Its just the same game, but with more players. Which tends to amplify the core issues of the game. Likeneed to wall on, slow protoss units. Or 500 supply of 3/3/3 carriers.
I would thoroughly enjoy it, if stormgate multiplayer offered aomething else than that. Something where the optimal play isnt to gang up on 1 of the opponents as early as possible. And that isnt the same game, just with more people. Where you can still be relevant to the outcome 25minutes in, even if you got rushed by 3 players at the 6 minute mark. Not sure if the development is going in that direction in any way, but that would be awesome.
I believe that it is to some degree for both 3vE (which is designed in from the beginning) and 3v3 which is also designed as a legit game mode and includes respawning heroes
Yeah they said 3v3 will be quite different than 1v1 and not just a upscaled version (more players, bigger map). But they haven't said anything concrete and AFAIK these are just plans right now. And plans can change rather quickly. I don't believe 3vE will ever be a competitive mode in Stormgate like it is in WoW with raids (first kills, fastest kill, clearspeed, whatever) but I can absolutely see 3v3 as the main competitive mode. Especially if it is a bit more MOBA'esque
On December 13 2023 05:54 Hider wrote: There are enough ego-driven MOBA players who find enjoyment in outplays and carrying, and an amazing competitive RTS would probably appeal better to them than any MOBA.
But currently the RTS games are so flawed, mediocre and uninnovative that MOBA-ego-players still find more enjoyment playing Yasuo or equivalent than learning an RTS.
Ego driven players will never thrive long term in a 1 on 1 environment. Be it chess, the slowest option that comes to mind. Or the latest iteration of quake, the fastest option I can think of.
This is because after losing enough times, there are no more excuses,and the ego of said player HAS to take the hit. You cant win everytime. And you cant blame balance every time. You CAN however blame your "shitty teammates" for every loss. Ego players thrive in MOBA because of the additional excuses available to protect the ego. I would even go so far as to say ego players thrive in team situations where there arepeople around them that they can be the hero for.
Ego takes different forms, some like to be perceived as skilled, some want to ruthlessly prove it. Also if you’re driven by ego I mean you somewhat have to share a bit of glory in a team, even if you won’t admit it.
I think games have shifted to be generally more team-based because it’s more social, partly for the reasons you outline.
But iirc chess is growing in popularity a bit. Speedrunning has grown a lot over the years and it’s a very solo activity, outside of knowledge sharing. Fortnite (or PubG to an extent) or FIFA are all huge games with their main competitive modes being 1v1. Which I think tends to be glossed over a bit here, albeit understandably by focusing on MOBAs due to their similarities with RTS
There’s a lot of people with differing psychological profiles out there, and I think sufficient folks enjoy challenging themselves mano o mano for a 1v1 game to prosper. Equally, on the other side of the ledger, teammates may shield the ego but they can also be incredibly exasperating and I personally hate solo queueing in most titles. Between toxicity and incompetence it’s not a pleasant experience.
One possibility we haven’t really discussed much come to think of it is maybe the team modes in Stormgate actually turn out to be the popular mode, that they do interesting things and balance them properly and the competitive scene shifts that way from the traditional 1v1, or they’re equally viable.
I had a lot of fun and mostly played AT in WC3, had some casual fun with it in SC2 but certain racial combos were clearly really advantaged due to certain limitations, too much for it to really feel it had much competitive potential. Protoss’ lack of speed and need to wall for example. A relative lack of hive mind experimentation and optimisation, and maps built upon that knowledge also being a factor.
If factions lack those kind of constraints that are exacerbated by multiple opponents perhaps the team modes end up having a lot of competitive potential too.
Online chess is having a big boom since the pandemic. They even have proper cheating scandals and everything. Proper esports. All that is missing really, is someone hosting a tournament and then pocketing the prize pool. Jokes aside though, all chess players I know of, know the self hatred that comes with losing chess games. And I believe that doesn't go well with a look at me Im the best attitude.
I do hope that stormgate team games are fun to play and easy to pick up. During the lifetime of sc2 I spent many hours introducing my friends to the game in various team formats. Out of all of them, only one ever stuck with it. He got hooked on the micro, picking apart people with terran drops. Hes even got into 1v1 ladder, and managed to beat me a couple of times. Now Im not good at starcraft. But I can thrash a newbie.
For me to enjoy and succeed in Stormgate, It will have to offer something that i can enjoy socially. At this point in my life I dont have the time to sit alone for hours on end,gitting gud at a new video game. Many games that are optimized for 1v1 and have a team mod like sc, wc3 or steel division, feel like the team mode was tacked on as an afterthought. Its just the same game, but with more players. Which tends to amplify the core issues of the game. Likeneed to wall on, slow protoss units. Or 500 supply of 3/3/3 carriers.
I would thoroughly enjoy it, if stormgate multiplayer offered aomething else than that. Something where the optimal play isnt to gang up on 1 of the opponents as early as possible. And that isnt the same game, just with more people. Where you can still be relevant to the outcome 25minutes in, even if you got rushed by 3 players at the 6 minute mark. Not sure if the development is going in that direction in any way, but that would be awesome.
I believe that it is to some degree for both 3vE (which is designed in from the beginning) and 3v3 which is also designed as a legit game mode and includes respawning heroes
I haven't looked at any of the marketing material, as I prefer to get an impression of the full game when it is released. Respawning sounds nice tho. Nothong worse than getting eliminated from a teamgame and having to watch your friends keep playing for 10 more minutes.
On December 13 2023 07:48 Miragee wrote: I honestly think "APM" is not the deciding factor, it's multitasking that is tiring. MOBA players spam a shit ton of APM with their mouse. Klicking 3 times per second to move a single character is way less exhausting for the head then playing at half of those APM but being dropped at one location while trying to keep up with production, building structures and moving your army.
It's a fair argument, because even the more mechanically demanding champions/heroes in MOBA's are not multitask-based, but more timing/precision/knowledge-based.
My theory is that you will still find a general correlation in people who like the high skill cap moba heroes and who can find enjoyment in mutltiasking in an RTS, but I don't know the ratio for sure.
One thing though; the multitasking learning curve (if macro is very easy-semi/automatic) will be relatively flat. By that I mean you are not forced into multitasking as you learn the game. If you play against other new players, chances are that if either of you attempts to do multitasking it will likely lead to much worse micro and hence be suboptimal.
So as long as multitasking is gradually introduced I think it can work out. But it does require almost removing the macro-part, because in SC2 all new players are forced to both micro and macro at the same time - in contrast if you only focus on micro at the beginning and then gradually learn to implement multi-pronged harass or split up your army in multiple places at once, you get a nicer learning curve.
Probably one change that could be made is to have queued up units only deduct resources when they actually build. You should also be able to queue up a unit without the necessary resources (or even tech) and have it start when the requirements are met. This frees up your apm to worry about more strategical decisions such as which unit to build, or which base buildings you need, rather than having to be at your base at the exact moment you can build something.
Yes, that actually could be an improvement.
To make macro eveneasier, my thinking is to take a little bit of "freedom" away in the granularity of unit construction. So when you press a button to build a 1 supply unit, that builds 6 units. When you press a button to build a 3 supply unit it builds 2 etc.
But obviously this idea probably wouldn't work with how Stormgate is currently designed with an early game with low unit-counts. In my rts-vision of a game I imagine larger unit-counts in the early game and generally large army sizes in which case I think this could work.
I can't remember exactly how Stormgate works in this regard, but I wouldn't want players to have to build multiple infastructure buildings to be able to produce units. Supply buildings are removed as well. The only thing limiting production is income.
I wouldn't remove construction of buildings though. I think construction of buildings/static defense to secure positions around the map is a very interesting part of an RTS, and I would add even more options relative to Sc2.
An impediment to radical innovation is a big budget from borrowed money. Major decisions get made by big committees and they are constantly worried about how every decision impacts the "monetization model".
Look at how skinny everyone was at Blizzard. Now, that is a scrappy low budget team!
Another area that perhaps is in need of innovation; How do you reduce the snowball effect. Usually in RTS there is a double punishment; you lose your army + position on the map which frequently reduces future income as well.
My thinking was this; would it be possible to decorrelate a players map control with his income level. What if securing more control around the map didn't give you more income, but actually by itself provided enough benefits; e.g. better vision or better "fallback" opportunities (such as towers in MOBA's).
I know this getting a little off-topic in relation to Stormgate, but my point is that there is so much room for innovation in RTS. So many unexplored ideas that may or may not work, but possibly could take the genre to the next level.
IMO, the best and easiest place for radical innovation is in the world builder. There are lots of world builders out there for anyone to use. Nothing has bubbled up.
Frostgiant is actually ambitious - much more than I would have been - but that's when it comes to the scope, e.g. co-op, different 3v3, campaign etc.
In the tech-industry generally startups are more narrow focussed and innovative than established companies. The latter have have marketing budget + brand value. Startups tends to be the one that has figured out a new angle and wants to explot it. Perhaps this new angle/idea was impractical too implement by a big company due to politics or other inefficiences.
From my perspective, it appears that Frostgiant thinks the classical RTS genre is mostly fine as it is. Perhaps they reason that other other RTS games including Wc3 were doing many things well but that the engines/responsiveness weren't the best. Sc2 had a good engine but was too fast-paced and macro just a bit too hard. So if you take Sc2, make macro a bit easier + QoL improvements + slow down pace --> that it's enough.
I also assume they rationalize that the reason blizzard isn't making this game is because there is too much overhead in development at blizzard which causes higher development costs than for that of a startup.
I worry that Frostgiants is trying to do many things at once and not trying to cater to too many people without really nailing either. Generally I think startups succeed when they try and do 1 thing better than anyone else.
(although note I have zero opinions on their co-op, that might end up saving them)
I think there are many great RTS games out there and I think the RTS genre is at capacity. I particularly enjoy the various types of RTS.
CoH2 is great. SC2, Brood War, WC3 are all great. Red Alert 3 is great. AoE2 is great. I was super skeptical about CoH2. I'm glad I turned out to be 100% wrong. It proved to be a great game.
I think CoH2 is innovative in its own way. RA3 is innovative in its own way. Same with SC2.
With so many RTS players locked into these games it is really hard to get people to try something new.
There are probably innovative RTS games out there. However, let me rephrase it: "Innovative + microable/high-skillcap" game. It's a bit of a shame if the most innovative games have very slow responsiveness and you are controlling like <10 unmicroable units.
On December 16 2023 09:45 Hider wrote: I also assume they rationalize that the reason blizzard isn't making this game is because there is too much overhead in development at blizzard which causes higher development costs than for that of a startup.
i think Blizzard promised ATVI money from two sources that never materialized. Blizzard promised to monetize the World Builder//Arcade and eSports. When those produced nothing I think Activision forced Blizzard's hand. It was probably part of the handshake deal when SC2 was made. ATVI said something like: "Sure, you can work on the game from 2006 to 2015... but it better produce a non stop stream of cash."
Also, Heroes of the Storm was a flop and that worked on the SC2 engine.
Blizzard rolled the dice and it came up snake eyes.
On December 16 2023 09:34 Hider wrote: Another area that perhaps is in need of innovation; How do you reduce the snowball effect. Usually in RTS there is a double punishment; you lose your army + position on the map which frequently reduces future income as well.
My thinking was this; would it be possible to decorrelate a players map control with his income level. What if securing more control around the map didn't give you more income, but actually by itself provided enough benefits; e.g. better vision or better "fallback" opportunities (such as towers in MOBA's).
I know this getting a little off-topic in relation to Stormgate, but my point is that there is so much room for innovation in RTS. So many unexplored ideas that may or may not work, but possibly could take the genre to the next level.
Warcraft 3 kind of did this with upkeep, a system I think is interesting and relatively unexplored way to reduce snowballing, and some interesting strategic decisions to be made.
It’s an inherently snowbally genre though, and if a game was designed to reduce that element too much it might have negative consequences. I think more comeback potential would be nice for sure but if it’s too strong it’ll be frustrating the other direction. Like if I’ve killed the early game, stomped a few early skirmishes and got my expos up, but some mechanic stops me pushing my advantage that could be frustrating too.
I think there’s some space between where there’s more chance of a comeback than you see in SC2/BW where you’re kind of fucked if you lose a bunch of workers early and you may as well leave, and some state where your good play doesn’t get rewarded due to overly forgiving defence mechanics
The ability to obtain more resources because you control more territory is intuitive and I think should be a main benefit of holding more ground. It may be possible that, if your opponent controls a certain number more points on the map than you, you gain the ability to train some hail mary units, or activate some temporary buff, so that you can try to fight back with less resources. The winning player has the constant advantage of more resources, so they should win in the long run if they defend that one burst of power.
If Frost Giant wants a big seller the game needs an NR20 tech to battlecruisers mode built in. For every TL.net poster there is there are probably 50 or 60 people who just want to make big units and watch them blow each other up.
On December 16 2023 09:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: An impediment to radical innovation is a big budget from borrowed money. Major decisions get made by big committees and they are constantly worried about how every decision impacts the "monetization model".
Look at how skinny everyone was at Blizzard. Now, that is a scrappy low budget team!
Should have Artosis and Tasteless as casters, with TLO, Mana, and Moon playing.
Watching this so far visual calrity definitely seems to be a big issue. I couldn't tell what was going on, the colours are so desaturated I couldn't work out whose units were whose.
EPT![[image loading]](https://img.redbull.com/images/c_fill,g_auto,w_1170,h_780/q_auto,f_auto/redbullcom/2016/03/07/1331780875169_2/a-young-and-fresh-blizzard-in-the-early-days)
