TLDW: "By the way I'm going to call out all RTS games right now. I know this is a stormgate video but everybody does this weird thing where they're like, cuz I talked to all these publishers and ones for games that people don't even know about yet, they're a little bit too caught up with like new players, and then you go okay but you need to have hardcore players too."
This confirms there is another big RTS in development that no one knows about from one of the publishers he's spoken to. We know about Zerospace, Battle Aces, Stormgate and Tempest Rising, but what could this secret RTS be, and by who?
Will update this thread as we find out more information.
Personally, I am excited we have another RTS in the works since Stormgate, Battle Aces, And ZeroSpace seem to not have fully won over the StarCraft audience. If this company is talking with Tasteless, I think it being starcraft-like is not a far shot. Could it be from Mike Morhaime's company Dreamhaven? Secret Blizzard RTS? Warcraft 4? does anyone have any other thoughts?
In general I agree with the notion that even though game studios say "more new player friendly", they don't really succeed in that. And they also just make the game less interesting from a high-skill cap perspective.
It would be a refreshing take if a studio admitted - we don't know how to make it easy but we know how to make something awesome for hardcore players.
Specifically on the Battle Aces. It makes sense to start with a lot of workers so action starts right away. However, it's unfortunately also quite stressful when you need to make decisions ASAP as a new player. So game-devs that try this approach need to think better around how to allow players to worry less about multiple different decisions and just focus on one part at the time.
I personally disagree with it. There's no real need for cater to a hardcore community, maybe appealing to hardcore players is an issue.
I am looking at some tower defense games and there are consistent new game with new ideas with RTS elements, and some are doing fairly decent.
I am playing expedition 33, a genre (turn based combat) that even Final Fantasy was convinced it's a dead-end. Turns out that's not necessarily true, it just needs to be a great game even if the hardcore turn based fans would be turned off by the necessity of QTE.
I am looking at some tower defense games and there are consistent new game with new ideas with RTS elements, and some are doing fairly decent.
But they are sucecsful at making the game easy. Every single RTS that has tried to make the game easier hasn't succeeding in significantly reducing the skill floor, and yet they all managed to significantly reduce the micro-skill cap.
Now I do think the real issue is incompetence - it should be feasible to make the game significantly easier while raising the skill-cap, but I think we have to be realistic as well and acknowledge that a lot of game devs sucks and they probably have an easier time succeeding by narrowing down the target group.
I am playing expedition 33, a genre (turn based combat) that even Final Fantasy was convinced it's a dead-end. Turns out that's not necessarily true, it just needs to be a great game even if the hardcore turn based fans would be turned off by the necessity of QTE.
You don't have to be the target group for this game. A game can do reasonably well if it's developed efficiently (so no Frostgiant money wasting) and has a clear idea for the game they want to develop and target group it tries to reach.
I’d just like to see someone really nail whatever they’re trying to do, and have that bit of vision.
Could be super hardcore, or super casual. If the former it might scratch that StarCraft itch for me. If the latter it could be an ideal game to get Minibat into the genre and play together.
On May 02 2025 17:51 ETisME wrote: I personally disagree with it. There's no real need for cater to a hardcore community, maybe appealing to hardcore players is an issue.
I am looking at some tower defense games and there are consistent new game with new ideas with RTS elements, and some are doing fairly decent.
I am playing expedition 33, a genre (turn based combat) that even Final Fantasy was convinced it's a dead-end. Turns out that's not necessarily true, it just needs to be a great game even if the hardcore turn based fans would be turned off by the necessity of QTE.
I think the big thing between hardcore and casual is longevity.
How many of those fun new tower defence games are still going to be talked about in a year? I think if your trying to make a game that people will play for years to come you need that hardcore player element who will keep playing the game they like for years.
If you want to just make a good game that people will (hopefully) buy and then move on to the next project then I agree you don't 'need' the hardcore players.
On May 02 2025 17:51 ETisME wrote: I personally disagree with it. There's no real need for cater to a hardcore community, maybe appealing to hardcore players is an issue.
I am looking at some tower defense games and there are consistent new game with new ideas with RTS elements, and some are doing fairly decent.
I am playing expedition 33, a genre (turn based combat) that even Final Fantasy was convinced it's a dead-end. Turns out that's not necessarily true, it just needs to be a great game even if the hardcore turn based fans would be turned off by the necessity of QTE.
I think the big thing between hardcore and casual is longevity.
How many of those fun new tower defence games are still going to be talked about in a year? I think if your trying to make a game that people will play for years to come you need that hardcore player element who will keep playing the game they like for years.
If you want to just make a good game that people will (hopefully) buy and then move on to the next project then I agree you don't 'need' the hardcore players.
Yeah, I already have more games on Gamepass alone than I can play. And I have a good time
But my habits have always really been I’ll have a ‘main’ game I’ll play for years and years, or follow too in the case of an SC2.
I think often the hardcore/casual framing is overly focused on hard/easy to play lines. At least for me it’s more a matter of ‘is this something I can have fun with for a few hours, or beat in a week and I’ve had my fun, versus it being something I could envision playing for 5+ years regularly.
On May 02 2025 17:51 ETisME wrote: I personally disagree with it. There's no real need for cater to a hardcore community, maybe appealing to hardcore players is an issue.
I am looking at some tower defense games and there are consistent new game with new ideas with RTS elements, and some are doing fairly decent.
I am playing expedition 33, a genre (turn based combat) that even Final Fantasy was convinced it's a dead-end. Turns out that's not necessarily true, it just needs to be a great game even if the hardcore turn based fans would be turned off by the necessity of QTE.
I think the big thing between hardcore and casual is longevity.
How many of those fun new tower defence games are still going to be talked about in a year? I think if your trying to make a game that people will play for years to come you need that hardcore player element who will keep playing the game they like for years.
If you want to just make a good game that people will (hopefully) buy and then move on to the next project then I agree you don't 'need' the hardcore players.
Majority of them will fail, but that happens in all genres. Hardcore players were all casual once. That goes for any games, including SC series.
Even the indie turn based 2d tower defence game, the last spell, has a concurrent 300 players. That's double/triple stormgate numbers. oldie classic battle of middle earth 2 still got a fair number of players and interest. Titanfall 2 etc.
It doesn't really need to be catering to hardcore, players will grow to it if it's fun.
A game can appeal to hardcore and casual fans. Almost all games that we consider hardcore do so. Sc2 has the campaign, custom games, and coop. The reason it lost to competitors like LoL was due to an outdated business model. F2P games will always attract more gamers. Instead of focusing on appealing to casuals/hardcore gamers they should focus on creating a good game.
On May 04 2025 18:39 RvB wrote: A game can appeal to hardcore and casual fans. Almost all games that we consider hardcore do so. Sc2 has the campaign, custom games, and coop. The reason it lost to competitors like LoL was due to an outdated business model. F2P games will always attract more gamers. Instead of focusing on appealing to casuals/hardcore gamers they should focus on creating a good game.
On what game do people spend more money: League of Legends or Starcraft 2? Also: League of Legends in its early years(?) was absolutely atrocious. microtransaction hero shop, microtransaction rune shop, awful browser based client, awful talent tree. People didnt care for some reason. Also calling Starcraft 2 its business model outdated after it being one of the most sold games ever is quite something. World of Warcraft had a box sale and monthly subscription, were they outdated as well?
People switched from Starcraft 2 to League of Legends for the same reason they went from Warcraft 3 to DotA. Its much more comfy to play. There is a good reason why no big company tries an actual attempt at RTS and rather poop out the one hundreds shooter.
All the new RTS are basically fanmade games by people who want to please the RTS community with endless promises. No established developer/publisher would switch their resources to RTS. Its been run into the ground in the past, its all been done. C&C is the best example. For example: Grinding Gear Games could have done an RTS after Path of Exile, kinda go the way of Blizzard, branch out to new genres. But no, they had to fail with Path of Exile 2
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
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
I agree with your 2 and 3. But I think a decent AI is important as well. Doing comp stomps with other people is another good way to get into more competitive modes. Perhaps even dedicated PvE modes such as SC2 coop.
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.
This is definitely one of the reasons why I can't be bothered with Stormgate. That they have legally-distinct Terran, Zerg and Protoss factions is a turn-off rather than a turn-on.
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.
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.
Don't you think supreme commander is a bit low? Isn't it like only 20k units per player with mods? Or like 8k units until it gets unplayable in multiplayer? Higher expectations here is a nice to have. Allows for 64vs64 players or very large armies in user generated scenarios.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
EPT
