On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
I have no idea what it was called, but back in the early 2000s there was some kind of MMORTS (very, very indie). Kind of small scale in terms of units per side I wanna say. I barely played it (either couldn't get it to work or it cost money that young me didn't have maybe), so my recollection is really limited.
There were seasons, and a persistent like area control thing, with clans battling for them. I wanna say you had a really low unit count, maybe a hero unit of some sort. It was mega indie and didn't last all that long.
I think there were creeps a la WC3?
I only played it really, really briefly just before the game died.
That does sound pretty conceptually cool at least. But execution of the coolest ideas is bloody difficult. Star Citizen springs to mind, or I remember like 15+ years ago playing World War 2 online which was like a persistent environment on like a half/quarter scale of Europe. Be infantry, be part of an aircraft or a tank crew. Great when it worked, which it often didn’t.
There were also Savage and Savage 2. Quite innovative games that mixed MOBA, RTS and RPG elements. Basically most players took on a role of MOBA heroes and played them FPP/TPP on the ground, leveled up etc. and one player took on the role of commander and had top-down RTS view, workers to control, bases to build and provide buffs to the other players. Pretty neat concept and it was highly competitive but didn't have very big player base.
On February 21 2024 19:14 Vindicare605 wrote: I was interested in Stormgate. Until I played it. Maybe I'll be interested in it again sometime, but I don't want to get my hopes up.
Ya, same, don't really see the appeal for myself right now, but I also didn't like some of the more recent shenanigans regarding their additional funding.
I don't think its about doing things differently or even things sounding cool on paper. I think what matters for an RTS to be truly popular is (a) you can identify a large enough playerbaser that you believe you can attract. (b) you can within a few minutes of gameplay/highlights make them be wow'ed and hooked to try out the game.
If you cannot do that, your RTS has no potential.
So Stormgate's problems are very severe. Not only is it struggling to WOW the core RTS fanbase. But that group isn't even to big. When we expand it slightly to a wider audience, there is 0 interest. Why would anyone be excited about some dogs attacking workers on a mineral line?
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
I don't think we really need some big evolution. RTS is a rather specific genre that caters to a specific crowd. IMO there is no real need for some huge innovations that would change the landscape completely. What people need is just a solid RTS with good fundamentals. Then you can innovate by adding awesome single player campaign/story (this is important to also attract more casual people instead of targeting just hardcore competitive crows), sprinkle in some cool mechanics and factions and you're all good.
I have given up hope on it.
I think there's too much baggage with RTS, kind of like fighter genre facing the same issue.
Command cards, lots of info dump, long game length. MOBA is even more complex but many grew up with it and sticked around like how RTS was for us, and doesn’t even need a campaign.
For all the talks about beginner friendly, look at stormgate, which part of it really was more beginner friendly than SC2?
They're pushing a lot of QoL and noob-friendly features, automatic hotkeys, quick build, supply blocks being much easier to fix, using 1234 and QWER keys similar to mobas and fps games. And there's a much higher time to kill than SC2, nothing one-shots in the game for example. I think they also mentioned implementing in-game guides. For a beginner it's definitely more friendly than SC2.
But all that is just for 1v1. The real factor for getting new players is coop. It was the most played game mode in sc2, even more so when the game got attention with f2p. People love coop games. I've met quite a few people irl who played sc2 coop but would never touch ladder. Coop is gonna be Stormgate's flagship gamemode despite most of the vocal community being 1v1 diehards.
Having 3v3 as a serious game mode with heroes and new win conditions could work out great as well. More like a moba but with armies.
I had a coop mode with my girlfriend and she found it even more confusing because of the auto hotkeys. She plays SC2 against normal AI and perfectly happy with grid hotkey.
Coop will definitely be cool, but what the beta had was just extremely barebone.
She's actually far more interested to play Godsworn (which we loved) than stormgate. slower kill time, hero unit, beautiful graphic design and music, and a fairly simple mechanics.
One of them might become a fun esport to watch. I have grown to like SC2 over the years, and now I watch the big tournaments. I'll probably always prefer playing brood war myself though.
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
I don't think we really need some big evolution. RTS is a rather specific genre that caters to a specific crowd. IMO there is no real need for some huge innovations that would change the landscape completely. What people need is just a solid RTS with good fundamentals. Then you can innovate by adding awesome single player campaign/story (this is important to also attract more casual people instead of targeting just hardcore competitive crows), sprinkle in some cool mechanics and factions and you're all good.
I have given up hope on it.
I think there's too much baggage with RTS, kind of like fighter genre facing the same issue.
Command cards, lots of info dump, long game length. MOBA is even more complex but many grew up with it and sticked around like how RTS was for us, and doesn’t even need a campaign.
For all the talks about beginner friendly, look at stormgate, which part of it really was more beginner friendly than SC2?
They're pushing a lot of QoL and noob-friendly features, automatic hotkeys, quick build, supply blocks being much easier to fix, using 1234 and QWER keys similar to mobas and fps games. And there's a much higher time to kill than SC2, nothing one-shots in the game for example. I think they also mentioned implementing in-game guides. For a beginner it's definitely more friendly than SC2.
But all that is just for 1v1. The real factor for getting new players is coop. It was the most played game mode in sc2, even more so when the game got attention with f2p. People love coop games. I've met quite a few people irl who played sc2 coop but would never touch ladder. Coop is gonna be Stormgate's flagship gamemode despite most of the vocal community being 1v1 diehards.
Having 3v3 as a serious game mode with heroes and new win conditions could work out great as well. More like a moba but with armies.
I had a coop mode with my girlfriend and she found it even more confusing because of the auto hotkeys. She plays SC2 against normal AI and perfectly happy with grid hotkey.
Coop will definitely be cool, but what the beta had was just extremely barebone.
She's actually far more interested to play Godsworn (which we loved) than stormgate. slower kill time, hero unit, beautiful graphic design and music, and a fairly simple mechanics.
The first 5-10 games playing SG were very confusing for me as well until I got somewhat used to the controls though I think it fair that a new game introduces new controls you have to learn. It is not SC2 after all and you do it with other games all the times.
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
I have no idea what it was called, but back in the early 2000s there was some kind of MMORTS (very, very indie). Kind of small scale in terms of units per side I wanna say. I barely played it (either couldn't get it to work or it cost money that young me didn't have maybe), so my recollection is really limited.
There were seasons, and a persistent like area control thing, with clans battling for them. I wanna say you had a really low unit count, maybe a hero unit of some sort. It was mega indie and didn't last all that long.
I think there were creeps a la WC3?
I only played it really, really briefly just before the game died.
Shattered Galaxy?
Yeah looks like it, damn you have a good memory. Nexon is a lot less indie than what I remembered, but I guess it was their early days.
On February 26 2024 09:14 WGT-Baal wrote: Actually I was happy to try and contribute during the alpha and also got to get back in touch with a few old school folks like Arew and wcg friends also like parting, but come beta my interest dipped hard as few changes were implemented and the biggest change was the internal macro mechanics which I hate.
So I will likely never play or watch it again.
So yes i like RTS but it doesn't mean i like all of them or should play all of them. SG feels like a UMS of sc2 to me, with a better netcode. I don't even play sc2 since lotv beta anyway, i guess i m a bw diehard. I think i like a good story, so i liked bw and war3, even solo. Sc2 wol was ok in format with the mission on the ship, if not always in content. But it went downhill and lotv was just ridiculous. SG I have zero interest in the lore, it s just bland. If i have time and motivation to play a newer rts it will probably be homeworld 3. Otherwise there are other genres anyway~
What I find a bit annoying in the communication and in most threads though is the pervasive idea that sc/war3 players are automatically going to play or try it just because some devs are the same or some variation of "wr oughta try it" and it irks me. Make a good game, and then i ll play it, other people who don't play rts now might play it too if it's fun.
I had never tried a flight sim and got hooked by a friend a few years back and now i have thousand of hours in ED and mfs2020, and starting dcs now. Rts are no different, make it fun to play with friends and to watch too and people will join. SG doesn't seem there and keeps targeting the wrong demographic.
If we like war3/sc2/bw and still play it after a decade+ we re not gonna switch unless you release a masterpiece that feels original
I wonder what the next big evolution of the genre will actually look like.
I’ve long dreamed of like some kind of proper big scale, persistent MMORTS, be it PvE or PvP focused, that’d be bloody cool.
I know some devs have dabbled, but if somebody properly nailed it it’d be a sick game. Play with your bros/broettes over some large theatre or war or campaign where you’re all merely generals in some wider war effort.
I have no idea what it was called, but back in the early 2000s there was some kind of MMORTS (very, very indie). Kind of small scale in terms of units per side I wanna say. I barely played it (either couldn't get it to work or it cost money that young me didn't have maybe), so my recollection is really limited.
There were seasons, and a persistent like area control thing, with clans battling for them. I wanna say you had a really low unit count, maybe a hero unit of some sort. It was mega indie and didn't last all that long.
I think there were creeps a la WC3?
I only played it really, really briefly just before the game died.
That does sound pretty conceptually cool at least. But execution of the coolest ideas is bloody difficult. Star Citizen springs to mind, or I remember like 15+ years ago playing World War 2 online which was like a persistent environment on like a half/quarter scale of Europe. Be infantry, be part of an aircraft or a tank crew. Great when it worked, which it often didn’t.
A great look at the RTS genre in 2024. I felt it sorta fits in here given the convo the last couple of pages.
I like Grubby because he can relate to top pros and people who can only play games a few hours a week. The guy can view things at a macro level, a micro level, and he is also street smart. So I highly recommend looking at this video.
Yeah, Grubby's content has been great on his talk channel. Feels quite unbiased, not afraid to critique but also clearly trying to be positive and open minded.
I am skeptical as the things I've seen in StormGate haven't wowed me but they've renewed my interest in RTS. I stopped playing SC2 at the end of WoL I believe and getting back into StarCraft is a monumental task so I will definitely give this a go instead when it is in Early Access. I will not be paying $40 to enter a beta for a free to play game, however. I feel like this is too big of a hurdle for many people to give it a shot early on and get the buzz and feedback going ASAP.
The other mentioned games do not interest me at all, ZeroSpace and that other one, I forgot its name.
On February 28 2024 00:43 Manit0u wrote: There were also Savage and Savage 2. Quite innovative games that mixed MOBA, RTS and RPG elements. Basically most players took on a role of MOBA heroes and played them FPP/TPP on the ground, leveled up etc. and one player took on the role of commander and had top-down RTS view, workers to control, bases to build and provide buffs to the other players. Pretty neat concept and it was highly competitive but didn't have very big player base.
Yeah, Nuclear Dawn had something similar going but with FPS and a Commander. I liked it a lot but it died quickly.
On March 01 2024 09:55 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Yeah, Grubby's content has been great on his talk channel. Feels quite unbiased, not afraid to critique but also clearly trying to be positive and open minded.
I’ve always been a fanboyfan anyway but I dipped from his content once he stopped focusing on WC3 stuff. Lately via this thread I’ve dipped my toes back in via links folks put here and I’m definitely impressed, I think he straddles the line between wanting x to succeed, but being skeptical better than most. Others tend to bounce between glass half full and empty in their content.
The official Tempest Rising Twitter account hasn't posted since November, but this tweet from the lead designer has me back on the hopium that the game will actually come out and didn't get the axe (parent company has been doing a bunch of layoffs and cancelations)
The Discord server of Wayward Strategy (Brandon Casteel, the lead designer of Tempest Rising) is probably one of the best places to get some in-depth discussion and latest news on the RTS genre on the internet, if your interest in the RTS games is not only limited to a specific RTS subgenre or only the most well-known franchises:
On March 02 2024 09:41 Waxangel wrote: The official Tempest Rising Twitter account hasn't posted since November, but this tweet from the lead designer has me back on the hopium that the game will actually come out and didn't get the axe (parent company has been doing a bunch of layoffs and cancelations)
Well, on their Steam page they did post some news in December:
Posted Fri, December 8, 2023 Shifting the Release Date - Tempest Rising Attention Commanders,
Since we released our demo on Steam, the feedback we have received from you has been tremendous. We couldn’t be more grateful for that!
This gave our team a great opportunity to approach several aspects of the game differently and change the scope of certain features based on your comments.
We are committed to releasing Tempest Rising at the highest quality possible, including a best-in-class PvP experience. To ensure we get there, we have decided we need more time to properly tweak and polish the game. This means that Tempest Rising will not release within 2023 as we have previously announced.
We’ve got some exciting plans in the works: From playtests and beta-testing to new videos and unit spotlights, our team is working on many things you can look forward to. So stay tuned, and thank you for your passionate and dedicated support of Tempest Rising!
Game got delayed but they didn't really say by how much. From the looks of it they were pretty close to finishing but decided to give it more time after the feedback (there's a playable demo on Steam) so I would assume it won't be too long?
On March 02 2024 10:40 SoleSteeler wrote: When are we going to hear more about David Kim's RTS? Maybe that'll come out of nowhere and knock everyone's socks off...
sometime this year, based on the positions they are hiring. (if I had to guess).
EPT
