On January 05 2026 01:05 Hider wrote: Another note on abilities. But damage-based abilities generally need to be lethal. RTS games that try to make the game more forgiving by reducing the damage across the board, it has the unfortuante side effect of not making abilities feel satisfying to use.
Instead of reducing damage, it's better to make losing a single skirmish/battle more forgiving. This can be done by significantly increasing the defenders advantage and boosting production speed. This means the game can be designed around units dying frequently.
All of the RTS games (except Battle Aces) went the other direction and reduced production speed relative to Sc2. And it means we have boring slow-motion battles with little "interesting" micro done during the battles
I would say that Beyond all Reason and the entire Total Annihilation line starts off with slower production than Sc2 but has no ceiling apart from what lags the game due to unit count. Where producing 10 units a second for minutes at a time isn't anything odd in a late game scenario.
Early game unit counts are small and micro is very important. Things stabilize and you tech up where the new units are few and micro of individual units instead of formations matters again. Then you repeat it again as units get many. Then late game when cheap units (since they absorb shots and scout), very expensive or niche ones are the only viable ones.
I think you can have both types of micro in the same game. @Miragee @Hider. I love movers and shooters, which work well in mechanical games where it's a lot just to move units around and macro. I also really like this feeling of being a bit overwhelmed and one choice eliminating another one: intensely microing your shuttle-reaver leaves money piling up at home. You simply cannot visit all your gateways and do this kind of micro at the same time. It's not a requirement that modern games take this tension-based (and friction-based) approach, but if the combat is also overly recognizable and bland, then what are we even doin. The allergy to creating resistance for the player is somewhat understandable, but resistance coupled with joy seems ideal to me.
In general I think the key point is shorter dev cycles and stronger focus. No doubt 10 years ago, the Immortal Gates of Pyre premise was sweet. And if they had released 6 years ago, would have been really cool. But as things drag on, interests and expectations change.
Double post my bad. I think the one addendum to vying for shorter dev cycles would be if you're making a timeless game that will not be patched. Issue here is a lot of people may think they're making a timeless game when they're really making a jump to conclusions mat. But tbh if it's truly one of those unicorn games, then taking 10 years is likely to its benefit. I guess the devs just have to know what they're making.
I also really like this feeling of being a bit overwhelmed and one choice eliminating another one: intensely microing your shuttle-reaver leaves money piling up at home. You simply cannot visit all your gateways and do this kind of micro at the same time.
I agree - I love this feeling as well. I think some RTS developers make a mistake when they try to eliminate this tension in order to lower the skill floor or smooth the learning curve. Multitasking is a core part of competitive RTS, just as aiming is intrinsic to FPS games. Removing it makes the gameplay less interesting.
That said, I would experiment with two design directions:
1. Replace part of the macro burden with a higher micro skill cap and more opportunities for multitask-driven gameplay (relative to SC2). SC2 already has strong micro depth, but I would push it significantly further. Many of the newer RTS games simplify macro through QoL changes while simultaneously reducing movement speed/increasing lethality and failing to introduce new, interesting micro interactions. The result is a lower mechanical skill ceiling - and, ultimately, less engaging gameplay.
2. Make multitasking suboptimal for beginners. New players shouldn’t be forced into multitask-heavy play to be effective. Instead, the optimal early experience should involve controlling a single army, spending 95%+ of camera time watching and maneuvering it. As players improve, it should gradually become optimal to split that army into multiple groups, naturally introducing multitasking as a reward for skill growth rather than a barrier to entry.
In general I think the key point is shorter dev cycles and stronger focus. No doubt 10 years ago, the Immortal Gates of Pyre premise was sweet. And if they had released 6 years ago, would have been really cool. But as things drag on, interests and expectations change.
5 years ago getting funding was probably easier though so they may have had a better chance at a releasing a more fleshed out product. But I still don't think it would have been a success.
As a general rule: If you can't make a short youtube montage video that immediately appeals to the target audience - the game can't lure them in (and the skillcap is also likely to be boring). Zerospace, Immortals Gates of Pyre, Stormgate and Battle Aces all failed this test. Starcraft 2 - as flawed as it is - is still more exciting.
Sometimes I watch NBA highlights or watch Messi do crazy shit. That motivates me and makes me want to to play these sports. It's the same concept with competitive games. It boggles my mind that all these game devs don't understand this concept - and instead focus on stuff that relatively speaking doesn't matter.
Factions, team-modes, map-design, lore, unit-count doesn't matter if the skillcap is boring.
In general I think the key point is shorter dev cycles and stronger focus. No doubt 10 years ago, the Immortal Gates of Pyre premise was sweet. And if they had released 6 years ago, would have been really cool. But as things drag on, interests and expectations change.
5 years ago getting funding was probably easier though so they may have had a better chance at a releasing a more fleshed out product. But I still don't think it would have been a success.
As a general rule: If you can't make a short youtube montage video that immediately appeals to the target audience - the game can't lure them in (and the skillcap is also likely to be boring). Zerospace, Immortals Gates of Pyre, Stormgate and Battle Aces all failed this test. Starcraft 2 - as flawed as it is - is still more exciting.
Sometimes I watch NBA highlights or watch Messi do crazy shit. That motivates me and makes me want to to play these sports. It's the same concept with competitive games. It boggles my mind that all these game devs don't understand this concept - and instead focus on stuff that relatively speaking doesn't matter.
Factions, team-modes, map-design, lore, unit-count doesn't matter if the skillcap is boring.
In general I think the key point is shorter dev cycles and stronger focus. No doubt 10 years ago, the Immortal Gates of Pyre premise was sweet. And if they had released 6 years ago, would have been really cool. But as things drag on, interests and expectations change.
5 years ago getting funding was probably easier though so they may have had a better chance at a releasing a more fleshed out product. But I still don't think it would have been a success.
As a general rule: If you can't make a short youtube montage video that immediately appeals to the target audience - the game can't lure them in (and the skillcap is also likely to be boring). Zerospace, Immortals Gates of Pyre, Stormgate and Battle Aces all failed this test. Starcraft 2 - as flawed as it is - is still more exciting.
Sometimes I watch NBA highlights or watch Messi do crazy shit. That motivates me and makes me want to to play these sports. It's the same concept with competitive games. It boggles my mind that all these game devs don't understand this concept - and instead focus on stuff that relatively speaking doesn't matter.
Factions, team-modes, map-design, lore, unit-count doesn't matter if the skillcap is boring.
Starcraft 2 is flawed? Compared to what?
Compared to what the RTS genre can be. Relatively speaking still better than other RTS games - and that's kinda my point. Huge room for improvement but instead the other games focus on the wrong parts.
In general I think the key point is shorter dev cycles and stronger focus. No doubt 10 years ago, the Immortal Gates of Pyre premise was sweet. And if they had released 6 years ago, would have been really cool. But as things drag on, interests and expectations change.
5 years ago getting funding was probably easier though so they may have had a better chance at a releasing a more fleshed out product. But I still don't think it would have been a success.
As a general rule: If you can't make a short youtube montage video that immediately appeals to the target audience - the game can't lure them in (and the skillcap is also likely to be boring). Zerospace, Immortals Gates of Pyre, Stormgate and Battle Aces all failed this test. Starcraft 2 - as flawed as it is - is still more exciting.
Sometimes I watch NBA highlights or watch Messi do crazy shit. That motivates me and makes me want to to play these sports. It's the same concept with competitive games. It boggles my mind that all these game devs don't understand this concept - and instead focus on stuff that relatively speaking doesn't matter.
Factions, team-modes, map-design, lore, unit-count doesn't matter if the skillcap is boring.
Starcraft 2 is flawed? Compared to what?
Compared to what the RTS genre can be. Relatively speaking still better than other RTS games - and that's kinda my point. Huge room for improvement but instead the other games focus on the wrong parts.
Oh, so its 100% hypothetical and not realizable. Odd how you treat your opinion as a fact
In general I think the key point is shorter dev cycles and stronger focus. No doubt 10 years ago, the Immortal Gates of Pyre premise was sweet. And if they had released 6 years ago, would have been really cool. But as things drag on, interests and expectations change.
5 years ago getting funding was probably easier though so they may have had a better chance at a releasing a more fleshed out product. But I still don't think it would have been a success.
As a general rule: If you can't make a short youtube montage video that immediately appeals to the target audience - the game can't lure them in (and the skillcap is also likely to be boring). Zerospace, Immortals Gates of Pyre, Stormgate and Battle Aces all failed this test. Starcraft 2 - as flawed as it is - is still more exciting.
Sometimes I watch NBA highlights or watch Messi do crazy shit. That motivates me and makes me want to to play these sports. It's the same concept with competitive games. It boggles my mind that all these game devs don't understand this concept - and instead focus on stuff that relatively speaking doesn't matter.
Factions, team-modes, map-design, lore, unit-count doesn't matter if the skillcap is boring.
Starcraft 2 is flawed? Compared to what?
Compared to what the RTS genre can be. Relatively speaking still better than other RTS games - and that's kinda my point. Huge room for improvement but instead the other games focus on the wrong parts.
Oh, so its 100% hypothetical and not realizable. Odd how you treat your opinion as a fact
What's not realizable? They haven't been realized yet - that's my point. RTS genre has a huge potential because there are many angles/mechanics/approaches that haven't been explored.
Starcraft 2 is not a flawed game? It has no flaws?
I wrote many opinions in my last few comments. I would expect 'starcraft 2 is flawed game' to be one of the lesser controversial statements I made - never heard from any Starcraft 2 fan before that it wasn't.. Do you want me to preface everything I write with "this is my opinion".
Are you actually being interested in RTS game-design discussions? Because beware they do involve opinions.
That said, I would experiment with two design directions:
1. Replace part of the macro burden with a higher micro skill cap and more opportunities for multitask-driven gameplay (relative to SC2). SC2 already has strong micro depth, but I would push it significantly further. Many of the newer RTS games simplify macro through QoL changes while simultaneously reducing movement speed/increasing lethality and failing to introduce new, interesting micro interactions. The result is a lower mechanical skill ceiling - and, ultimately, less engaging gameplay.
2. Make multitasking suboptimal for beginners. New players shouldn’t be forced into multitask-heavy play to be effective. Instead, the optimal early experience should involve controlling a single army, spending 95%+ of camera time watching and maneuvering it. As players improve, it should gradually become optimal to split that army into multiple groups, naturally introducing multitasking as a reward for skill growth rather than a barrier to entry.
I would hesitate to spend too much energy building bumpers for noobs in 1v1, outside of things that make the game more fun for everyone. Heroes of the Storm does it so well, in that the start of the game is not punishing at all and the cost of mistakes builds as the game goes on. I said as much in the tower rushing thread ^^. People who want to learn multitasking and become faster will do it, and it will come from inside. No amount of hand-holding or overly-accommodating design will help.
Anecdotally, I self-taught StarCraft 2 after some years playing DotA because I was driven to learn and was inspired by the pros. I feel like the individual has to want to not suck, and have some motivation around that. If the game accommodates the player with the motivation to improve, that is ideal.
edit: there are so many modes and potential RTS directions that would be very casual friendly, and you can tutorialize those, such as campaign, 2v2, co-op, etc. I'm strictly talking about 1v1. edit: NINJA DELETEd BAD PARTS ugghh edit: edit
In general I think the key point is shorter dev cycles and stronger focus. No doubt 10 years ago, the Immortal Gates of Pyre premise was sweet. And if they had released 6 years ago, would have been really cool. But as things drag on, interests and expectations change.
5 years ago getting funding was probably easier though so they may have had a better chance at a releasing a more fleshed out product. But I still don't think it would have been a success.
As a general rule: If you can't make a short youtube montage video that immediately appeals to the target audience - the game can't lure them in (and the skillcap is also likely to be boring). Zerospace, Immortals Gates of Pyre, Stormgate and Battle Aces all failed this test. Starcraft 2 - as flawed as it is - is still more exciting.
Sometimes I watch NBA highlights or watch Messi do crazy shit. That motivates me and makes me want to to play these sports. It's the same concept with competitive games. It boggles my mind that all these game devs don't understand this concept - and instead focus on stuff that relatively speaking doesn't matter.
Factions, team-modes, map-design, lore, unit-count doesn't matter if the skillcap is boring.
Starcraft 2 is flawed? Compared to what?
Compared to what the RTS genre can be. Relatively speaking still better than other RTS games - and that's kinda my point. Huge room for improvement but instead the other games focus on the wrong parts.
Oh, so its 100% hypothetical and not realizable. Odd how you treat your opinion as a fact
What's not realizable? They haven't been realized yet - that's my point. RTS genre has a huge potential because there are many angles/mechanics/approaches that haven't been explored.
Starcraft 2 is not a flawed game? It has no flaws?
I wrote many opinions in my last few comments. I would expect 'starcraft 2 is flawed game' to be one of the lesser controversial statements I made - never heard from any Starcraft 2 fan before that it wasn't.. Do you want me to preface everything I write with "this is my opinion".
Are you actually being interested in RTS game-design discussions? Because beware they do involve opinions.
RTS doesnt have huge potential. If it would have huge potential, any other company would have picked up RTS. But they didnt. Instead they developed Shooter, Battle Royal, Moba, Open World garbage, They tried MMORPG, but failed.
RTS games can't afford long dev cycles. They need a small targeted focus and absolutely nail that. Deliver the MVP and make it an awesome playing experience ASAP. The idea of having to needing to create a big campaign, multiplayer, many game-modes - you can't get the funding required for that.
I thought Immortal Gates of Pyre was dead month ago?! I had this game in my steam wishlist forever and occasionally I check up on games. The steam site of this was deader than dead last check up
Holy...lol. That's a lot of RTS. Something about lining them all up like that is rlly funny.
Some look pretty darn cool. Been following DORF closely but can't say I'm like mega hyped for the whole "dig trenches and build walls" thing. I'm also not much of a base builder but don't wanna be too negative. Still stoked to give it a shot and think it'll do well.
A couple that caught my eye were Fleetbreakers and Counter Clash. Some of the others look beyond butt fugly and I love it. It's like Be Kind Rewind. You can tell people love the genre.
Just released is Space Tales: A goofy story RTS. Demo is playable for free Fractured Alliance Dawn of War 4 March of Giants Crimson Freedom: Another C&C like.
And the obvious ones like Tempest Rising (which is getting better and better but I had no time to play yet) Zerospace Immortal (Dead or not?) DORF
EPT
