|
On May 08 2025 12:14 Latham wrote:
In CoH (I only have experience with CoH 2, didn't buy CoH3 and I've already forgotten CoH1) people would usually field 4-5 infantry squads and 3-4 vehicles. Also a King Tiger costs a lot more vehicle pop space than a clown car. I tihnk I had about 13-14 squads + vehicles in total in CoH, at most. In some campaign levels.
In multiplayer you probably almost never have more than 10-11.
|
I want LAN mode, or some alternative that means the game will still be playable even if the devs decide to shut down the servers (like open sourcing the server code, or direct P2P). Stormgate isn't worth investing the time to learn because it'll be unplayable when the studio folds, while on the other hand, BW will be forever playable at any patch.
|
On May 08 2025 12:14 Latham wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2025 04:00 ZeroByte13 wrote:The most successful RTS series in history ever had pop limit at about 200 or lower. - Starcraft 1-2, pop cap 200 - Warcraft 3, pop cap 100 - Age of Empires series, pop cap 200 - Command & Conquer series including Red Alert - don't have visible pop cap but players almost never have more than 100-150 units - Company of Heroes / Dawn of War, about 15 squads or vehicles in total, maybe 20 max. So maybe if you want your RTS to be really successful, you know what to do.  In Starcraft and Warcraft, units cost a varying amount of supply. A zergling costs 1/2 of pop, an Ultralisk 4. A peon costs 1, a grunt 3 and a tauren 5. In AoE2 everything is uniform and costs 1 supply.In CoH (I only have experience with CoH 2, didn't buy CoH3 and I've already forgotten CoH1) people would usually field 4-5 infantry squads and 3-4 vehicles. Also a King Tiger costs a lot more vehicle pop space than a clown car.
Bolded is incorrect in more modern versions:
https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Karambit_Warrior
https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Mahayana
Are the first two examples I could think of. (The general point is still true, they don't use this mechanic much.)
|
I want alphastar styled AI opponents at various skill levels.
|
On May 07 2025 11:28 Latham wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2025 23:13 WGT-Baal wrote:
For me there are 3 key parts to a good rts:
1) unique race design. I don't want to play a sc-like or warcraft-like game since i could just go ahead and play those instead. I d like a truly new set of races with different mechanics. Granted it could be tricky to balance. Random example: we could have naval units, supply/resource convoys, communication infrastructure, whatever thing not directly combat related
2) a good solid campaign. The campaign also acts as a tutorial but it should be good as standalone. Warcraft amd starcraft did great that way.
3) a good non 1v1 multiplayer. It can be ums but also 2v2, 3v3 and more. Bw was ok at first with that, Warcraft not as great, sc2 terrible imho. (As standalone, all 3 were great with UMS)
Building "for esport" should just be the observer and replay functions, the rest of the game should just be good instead of shoehorning a bad game into esport For me its: 1) Base building and tiers/ages. In my opinion base building is as much a core part of an RTS as resource gathering. 2) Scope. I need to be able to field BIG ARMIES. OK, maybe not on the level of Supreme Commander, but definitely more than say Dawn of War 2 or Company of Heroes. The maps need to be big, open, with multiple paths to outmaneuver your enemy and launch surprise attacks. Game has to be macro-friendly. On that note, micro should be its own reward. Don't put in needless abilities on units just for the sake of clicking them so the player has something to do. I'm looking at you Red Alert 3... 3) "rule of cool" factions and something that makes them unique. I don't want to say "unique races" because that kind of disqualifies Age of Empires 2 (and 4?) right now, because the civilizations in that game are very copy/pasta of one another, but obviously have their own strengths and weaknesses and UNIQUE UNITS (from the castle). I think AoE2:DE is currently the best RTS on the market.
absolutely agree with your 1) and 3). 2) i think i d have to see how it s done, but i have no strong feelings either way on the number of units. Absolutely agree again on multiple paths and that micro should be its own reward and not an ability for the sake of an ability (i already think sc2 went too far there vs bw).
Hopefully we also get LAN and decent AI as well (including PvE!), those are important. Looks like we re converging to a cool list y all let s make a studio! j/k
|
If I had to make a list I'd say
1. good pathing. A lot of RTS, especially old RTS feel clunky or unresponsive and that significantly lowers my engagement. Micro is cool, but if it doesn't work half of the time because the unit I'm trying to evacuate before it dies can't path a way to the back of my army within 5 seconds it just feels like micro has no point.
2. Unique factions/playstyles. AoE2 is pretty bad at this, but still has a bunch of unit comps that play differently. I think a lot of RTS lack a clear identity for factions or just copy-paste something else (looking at you generic future human faction that seems to be in every second RTS) and if the unit design and faction design doesn't set them apart it's difficult to feel like I haven't played this and seen this better.
3. Good PvE. I'm mainly playing PvE nowadays, so having an engaging campaign and a good coop go a long way.
I'm not that picky when it comes to micro vs macro, I enjoy micro heavy games like DoW and WC3 as much as more macro heavy games like AoE2 or Sc2. I think micro should be intuitive, but that's about it.
|
United Kingdom20341 Posts
On May 09 2025 22:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
I want alphastar styled AI opponents at various skill levels.
Not worth spending millions of dollars per map and per matchup to train it every time you update the game
|
On May 12 2025 14:23 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2025 22:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
I want alphastar styled AI opponents at various skill levels. Not worth spending millions of dollars per map and per matchup to train it every time you update the game
it gets less expensive every year. they start by training it against Bronze Leaguers on the ladder and 1v1 PvE games.
|
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
On May 12 2025 20:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2025 14:23 Cyro wrote:On May 09 2025 22:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
I want alphastar styled AI opponents at various skill levels. Not worth spending millions of dollars per map and per matchup to train it every time you update the game it gets less expensive every year. they start by training it against Bronze Leaguers on the ladder and 1v1 PvE games.
It’s still expensive, and probably not worth it for the returns you get. I’ve yet to find a public record of AlphaStar’s cost, but estimates I’ve seen are in the millions, and some you need the fingers of two hands to count.
It’s not even that great a training tool for PvP from what I saw with AlphaStar, in that it did a lot of effective, but wonky and off-meta stuff.
There’s also the problem that you need the players before you get the AI, so it’s not something you can introduce with a release.
In a hypothetical world let’s say AlphaStar was in SC2 at release, with beta players and QA players punched in. Well, what’s it learning? A bunch of builds and styles that would become antiquated very quickly once the hive mind got their hands on the game, and maps started to change. So you gotta keep training and training , which costs.
It really comes down to whether it’s worth doing, outside of a challenge/research project which AlphaStar was. Spend potentially millions replicating human players at various MMRs, or just have a ladder and let humans play other humans.
If the price ever comes down to the effect it’s a trivial expense, yeah then maybe it’s a decent investment.
In terms of PvE experiences, perhaps it’s a worthwhile avenue of exploration, although I think it may be an avenue that people like in theory more than practice.
Brutal in SC2 is a decent challenge, even for a decent multiplayer player, and I’ve played many RTS games that are a cakewalk if you’ve like 20 years playing competitive RTS games.
A smarter AI perhaps pushes the scales too much and renders certain mission scenarios basically impossible to do. If you can’t exploit a predictable, dumb AI, missions like hero missions, or ones with limited forces, or ‘you’re outnumbered, outgunned, hold on’ become undoable.
Yeah like an AI that properly counter-micros, or doesn’t leave lings and ultras getting stuck on depot walls, or figures out I’ve got 2 tank lines at two entrances and just builds a bunch of mutas and backstabs, yeah it’s cool on an intellectual level, but in game you’ll just die.
I think more so than other genres, a programmatic dumb AI fits RTS that bit better.
|
On May 12 2025 21:54 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2025 20:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 12 2025 14:23 Cyro wrote:On May 09 2025 22:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
I want alphastar styled AI opponents at various skill levels. Not worth spending millions of dollars per map and per matchup to train it every time you update the game it gets less expensive every year. they start by training it against Bronze Leaguers on the ladder and 1v1 PvE games. It’s still expensive, and probably not worth it for the returns you get.
and that changes over time. the cost falls. incubation projects that failed in the past will have a viable path forward.
|
Nothing fancy. Just some NEW ideas besides "what if we made RTSs more automated". Every RTS coming out is just a nostalgia-based game with zero new ideas, or an automated RTS meant to appeal to casual players that will never play the game anyway.
StarCraft 1: 3 incredibly unique factions, very creative designs for units/spells
War3: adding heros to RTS formula
SC2: far less creative than previous blizz games but still had some cool unique ideas for units/spells etc
Stormgate: zero new ideas
Battle Aces: what if a game that is JUST sc2 micro and no strategy/macro (all unit designs are copied from SC2 but more muted/boring)
Zerospace: what if war3 again
|
How SC2 is less creative than BW when it had
- warp mechanics for Protoss
- creep spread for Zerg
- many units which are not just bunch of stats like most BW units are, with interesting passives or abilities
- far, far fewer useless or almost useless units
- top bar abilities (in campaign / coop)
- branching campaign missions with meta-upgrades between them, with different mercs / upgrades / mutations / etc.
- unique mechanics for many missions
- coop mode with 18 (!) very unique commanders
?
BW is so "standard' in comparison IMO, and its 3 races are less unique than any of 18 commanders in SC2 coop.
|
https://x.com/Narushioww/status/1899178803324498359
okay this is gonna be bizarre if true, but could chinese developer of gacha game "Wuthering Waves" be making an RTS?
They have job postings citing they are making a "New Competitive Game" and one of job tag descriptions is "RTS Games."
Could this be the secret RTS in development Tasteless was talking about?
|
I don't play ladder matches. I only play campaign.
My wish is for a game with good storyline. With good factions/races that are very different from each other. Yet there is somewhat balance.
Ay basically I want another starcraft/warcraft with new story hahaha
|
On May 19 2025 01:41 DucK- wrote:
I don't play ladder matches. I only play campaign.
My wish is for a game with good storyline. With good factions/races that are very different from each other. Yet there is somewhat balance.
Ay basically I want another starcraft/warcraft with new story hahaha
Could probably make a first contact Starcraft story. Or a Warcraft with more of a focus on tribes/cities than global threats. Can't really continue the previous stories, need to jump into the future or the past, perhaps scaling it down or letting it take place over a long time period like Protoss expanding back out from whatever remains, where each mission is about setting them up for another 100 years.
I agree with you on the overall point though. Just do another campaign, you have assets and an engine already. I think SpellForce did that well for a long time. But I guess the problem is in how you monetize it, DLCs in general don't sell that well and doing enough for a full game is costly.
|
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
I can sort of understand the difficulty in making that next big RTS given how almost every response here is totally different!
|
On May 19 2025 07:07 WombaT wrote:
I can sort of understand the difficulty in making that next big RTS given how almost every response here is totally different!
I want something completely different and novel. Tired of the current blueprints (even tho i play starcraft every week). Like there is no golden rule an RTS game cant borrow other genres or switch pov. Have a racing aspect to the game where you transport valuable resources and the faster you go the more dangerous it is and maybe your vehicle can tip over or whatever. Have and RTS take place completely underground and have a ground penetrating radar be your scout or vision until you hit chambers or buildings. Have one faction be the map environment itself where the plants and locals fight against whatever race or faction. Maybe have Political Opinion be a fourth resource, the warring factions have to keep the locals on their side or at least manageable, and you can use propaganda or bribery to start getting locals to harass the enemy or stop harassing you, and each level can have a gradient level of political opinion power scales, one map has very few locals and isnt really an issue, while another map the two warring factions *barely* have more power than the locals and propaganda and public outreach are the main factores (maybe even both players can lose to the locals). and in this case maybe its literally a RTS about revolutions and then you have the rebels vs the empire, and the key battles are mostly winning political debates and supporting charismatic leaders.
For a thinking mans genre, RTS designers are perhaps the most uncreative and uninspired.
|
I played BattleAces, I played Stormgate, I played ZeroSpace but none of them had that "oops I played 10 hours and now it's the middle of the night" effect on me. The opposite really: I was glad the session was done.
Maybe it's just me and I'm not that into RTS anymore. Or maybe (like it was said many times before) the genre is so stale and boring and after 25 years of Starcraft and Warcraft I don't want any more iterations of known stuff but new and flashy and brave.
Last Steam RTS fest I played a demo from a game called Space Tales. Incredible funny and humorous game that had RTS boss battles. That was awesome! That got me excited!
|
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
On May 21 2025 09:42 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2025 07:07 WombaT wrote:
I can sort of understand the difficulty in making that next big RTS given how almost every response here is totally different! I want something completely different and novel. Tired of the current blueprints (even tho i play starcraft every week). Like there is no golden rule an RTS game cant borrow other genres or switch pov. Have a racing aspect to the game where you transport valuable resources and the faster you go the more dangerous it is and maybe your vehicle can tip over or whatever. Have and RTS take place completely underground and have a ground penetrating radar be your scout or vision until you hit chambers or buildings. Have one faction be the map environment itself where the plants and locals fight against whatever race or faction. Maybe have Political Opinion be a fourth resource, the warring factions have to keep the locals on their side or at least manageable, and you can use propaganda or bribery to start getting locals to harass the enemy or stop harassing you, and each level can have a gradient level of political opinion power scales, one map has very few locals and isnt really an issue, while another map the two warring factions *barely* have more power than the locals and propaganda and public outreach are the main factores (maybe even both players can lose to the locals). and in this case maybe its literally a RTS about revolutions and then you have the rebels vs the empire, and the key battles are mostly winning political debates and supporting charismatic leaders. For a thinking mans genre, RTS designers are perhaps the most uncreative and uninspired.
I think the genre does suffer from making stuff that sounds cool on paper, actually work and be fun consistently, or be a factor at all.
Or have a mechanic not just remain cool for the first, or tenth time, but hundredth or thousandth.
In a way I think RTS struggles with balancing complexity versus simplicity, which it kind of has to do. But perhaps too often errs with caution and leans to the latter.
I’m not saying don’t experiment, but I think to make it work you almost have to build your game entirely around a cool mechanic or two.
I’d love to see some more experimentation, but I think it needs focused. Try to bolt on cool mechanics all atop one another and you either end up with a mess of conflicting systems, or something that may work, but be very complicated to play.
I like blending political intrigue with RTS as an idea. I’m sorta picturing the Commandos series but you’re the French Resistance (or insert other movement, or hell have it be fictional). You gotta recruit, choose targets, manage the PR element etc. Tight RTT combat, and saboteurs being such a component of such warfare, destructible terrain and whatnot would be great here.
Whereas say I think if you added that in a blender to the traditional RTS eco, had some diplomacy layer, had a few other mechanics too and then that becomes potentially quite messy.
What I’d ideally like is another StarCraft. Doesn’t have to actually be StarCraft, but just that game and its niche in my life. That game that has me following after 15 years, friends made (possibly some enemies), a community like TL etc.
Failing that, I’d rather have a bunch of really solid, interesting experiences. Could be single-player, and I think that’s preferable for certain deviations from the classic formula.
I’d love to see a real large-scale multiplayer RTS, could be PvP or PvE focused. Have some players do the high level grand strategy a la generals, target choices and resource allocation etc, and other players are field commanders in the SC mould.
It’d be cool as shit to jump in with some buddies and conquer x sector of a wider persistent war over a week or whatever. Hard to make work I imagine so I think the game itself can’t be crazy complex, but I’d play the shit out of that.
|
On May 22 2025 00:11 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2025 09:42 Husyelt wrote:On May 19 2025 07:07 WombaT wrote:
I can sort of understand the difficulty in making that next big RTS given how almost every response here is totally different! I want something completely different and novel. Tired of the current blueprints (even tho i play starcraft every week). Like there is no golden rule an RTS game cant borrow other genres or switch pov. Have a racing aspect to the game where you transport valuable resources and the faster you go the more dangerous it is and maybe your vehicle can tip over or whatever. Have and RTS take place completely underground and have a ground penetrating radar be your scout or vision until you hit chambers or buildings. Have one faction be the map environment itself where the plants and locals fight against whatever race or faction. Maybe have Political Opinion be a fourth resource, the warring factions have to keep the locals on their side or at least manageable, and you can use propaganda or bribery to start getting locals to harass the enemy or stop harassing you, and each level can have a gradient level of political opinion power scales, one map has very few locals and isnt really an issue, while another map the two warring factions *barely* have more power than the locals and propaganda and public outreach are the main factores (maybe even both players can lose to the locals). and in this case maybe its literally a RTS about revolutions and then you have the rebels vs the empire, and the key battles are mostly winning political debates and supporting charismatic leaders. For a thinking mans genre, RTS designers are perhaps the most uncreative and uninspired. I think the genre does suffer from making stuff that sounds cool on paper, actually work and be fun consistently, or be a factor at all. Or have a mechanic not just remain cool for the first, or tenth time, but hundredth or thousandth. In a way I think RTS struggles with balancing complexity versus simplicity, which it kind of has to do. But perhaps too often errs with caution and leans to the latter. I’m not saying don’t experiment, but I think to make it work you almost have to build your game entirely around a cool mechanic or two. I’d love to see some more experimentation, but I think it needs focused. Try to bolt on cool mechanics all atop one another and you either end up with a mess of conflicting systems, or something that may work, but be very complicated to play. I like blending political intrigue with RTS as an idea. I’m sorta picturing the Commandos series but you’re the French Resistance (or insert other movement, or hell have it be fictional). You gotta recruit, choose targets, manage the PR element etc. Tight RTT combat, and saboteurs being such a component of such warfare, destructible terrain and whatnot would be great here. Whereas say I think if you added that in a blender to the traditional RTS eco, had some diplomacy layer, had a few other mechanics too and then that becomes potentially quite messy. What I’d ideally like is another StarCraft. Doesn’t have to actually be StarCraft, but just that game and its niche in my life. That game that has me following after 15 years, friends made (possibly some enemies), a community like TL etc. Failing that, I’d rather have a bunch of really solid, interesting experiences. Could be single-player, and I think that’s preferable for certain deviations from the classic formula. I’d love to see a real large-scale multiplayer RTS, could be PvP or PvE focused. Have some players do the high level grand strategy a la generals, target choices and resource allocation etc, and other players are field commanders in the SC mould. It’d be cool as shit to jump in with some buddies and conquer x sector of a wider persistent war over a week or whatever. Hard to make work I imagine so I think the game itself can’t be crazy complex, but I’d play the shit out of that.
Maybe a spinoff on the classical Shattered Galaxy? There seems to be a project called Collapsed Galaxy 2 that fits that mold and depending on choices could be promising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
