EPTKhaldor's thoughts about the future of RTS - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
| ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
On February 16 2014 04:24 Big J wrote: Can you exaggerate what you mean with "base building RTS"? putting word in mouth but when you go back to the start with dune2, c&c RA warcraft 1 the majority of the game was about base layouts because people hadn't yet figured out macro. I also think some of that is due to resources being a distance way in all of those games. In several of those games you had to place concrete to build upon. The game was much more about efficient base layouts. I think peopel are missing the point khaldor is makign about mobas it doesnt matter how hard the game is to get into. As an ignorant spectator you can see that the game is about 5v5 battling it out in very obvious and in your face ways the reason why those games are good is that there is also a shit ton of depth behind that. The other main point is that as a commentator that also gives you something really tangible to latch onto. Its easy to know when to build tension and how to release it because its thing sthat anyone can understand. OMG its first blood! OMG its a gank out of the treesm wooooah he fucked it up .... wow they managed to reverse it and kill mid who was ganking that helps both the side lane and the other mid that was losing before. Even if the spectator doesnt get the game easy explanations and excitement are easily conveyed. The result ... the commentary is enjoyable. SC2 commentary is quite frankly terrible - i have just gone back to the game and am amazazed at how lifeless or banal a lot is. | ||
|
xuanzue
Colombia1747 Posts
On February 16 2014 04:24 Big J wrote: Can you exaggerate what you mean with "base building RTS"? RTS = any clone of dune2 | ||
|
Archeon
3273 Posts
On February 16 2014 00:04 Big J wrote: Can't really agree with this. I've played (the old) Dota a lot (back in the days), still I don't really get what is going on in the MOBA battles. Imo to get excited about MOBAs you have to know all the Heroes and spells involved. Like, when I tried to watch LoL, it was just random stuff and effects going off and people randomly dying, since I had no clue what possibilities were there. In my opinion the main problem of RTS is that it is mechanically and attententionwise too hard. You have to focus on too many places all over the map and you have to grind out all those mechanical training sessions (which is extremely boring). Compared to how easy it is for a player to always stay focused on one screen and control one hero, it is just annoying to have to switch screen, select a worker, tab through a menu and find a place where you want to put down that supply depot. While all you really want to do is run around with your units and have new armies being made. I think for RTS games this has to become a keyfocus if they want to regain popularity amongst players (viewers will follow, since the viewers are 95% recruted from the playerbase): make macromechanics easier or straight out automate parts of them. I know this is an unpopular thought amongst oldschool RTS elitists, but think about what would be if we had even less automatization. Imagine you had to manually mine with your workers (send them to the minerals; send them back home). Of course the skilllevel would improve greatly, but is this fun and does this lead to growth of playerbase? Even elitists would say that this is too much, yet, we draw the line with arbitrary standards that have been created by games in the 1990s like CnC, Warcraft 1-2 and Broodwar. So I ask, is switching screens away from where the battle happens fun? Is spamming keys to build units in the midth of a fight what you want to focus at? Of course, making parts of the game easier may be problematic for competitive play, yet, there are easy ways to make up for that, by making units more potent. Give all units more standard abilities they can do apart from move+attack. E.g. give infantry the ability to run and crawl, and let tanks overrun smaller units if controlled properly. Three dimensional airbattles where you can avoid missiles with loopings and stuff like that! Skilllevel would increase through unit control and tactical usages of their abilities - which is the amazing thing we really like about playing RTS games, not the qeuing of another SCV or the ability to get supply blocked for only 1:15min in a 20min game. I totally agree. I think the problem for rts is that they are dumbed down a lot in terms of microability and strategy and instead we get the apm-spam-requirement of constantly increasing your base production. I wish it was the other way round. Also base-building is incredibly boring to watch. Problem is though to find the balance of micro and viewability. If every unit has special abilities like moba-heroes, the game gets to complex for beginners and viewers. I doubt that many of the viewers of dota 2 and lol dont play the game at least casually. | ||
|
LastDance
New Zealand510 Posts
I presume that's how a new viewer of SC2 feels, and that is the key engagements happen too fast and there just isn't time to digest what happened. What I do enjoy in a moba is the times when they are in the lanes and farming for gold. watching a team grow their economy faster than the other to gain an advantage. it's calculated and obvious. In brood war, it was great watching the 2 players chipping away at each other until one of them broke. Think SC2 would be much better if they made the unit pathing more similar to SCBW and Starbow. the griddy feel of the game just makes engagements more interesting and slows down the speed of those battles, which makes the game more enjoyable to watch. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 16 2014 05:43 MrTortoise wrote: putting word in mouth but when you go back to the start with dune2, c&c RA warcraft 1 the majority of the game was about base layouts because people hadn't yet figured out macro. I also think some of that is due to resources being a distance way in all of those games. In several of those games you had to place concrete to build upon. The game was much more about efficient base layouts. I think peopel are missing the point khaldor is makign about mobas it doesnt matter how hard the game is to get into. As an ignorant spectator you can see that the game is about 5v5 battling it out in very obvious and in your face ways the reason why those games are good is that there is also a shit ton of depth behind that. The other main point is that as a commentator that also gives you something really tangible to latch onto. Its easy to know when to build tension and how to release it because its thing sthat anyone can understand. OMG its first blood! OMG its a gank out of the treesm wooooah he fucked it up .... wow they managed to reverse it and kill mid who was ganking that helps both the side lane and the other mid that was losing before. Even if the spectator doesnt get the game easy explanations and excitement are easily conveyed. The result ... the commentary is enjoyable. SC2 commentary is quite frankly terrible - i have just gone back to the game and am amazazed at how lifeless or banal a lot is. Na, I literarilly meant to ask what he means exactly with "base building RTS". Because imo this can be interpreted at least two ways: 1) RTS games that require you to focus a lot on developing bases 2) RTS games that require you to build a lot of bases *) the combination of both of those elements. And I believe the first category is basically what every Strategy game until WC3 has been mainly about, often but not always being combined with the second category. So I'm a little confused with what he means with I would more say RTS is stagnating because now there are no RTS games where you build anything. since in my eyes, base development based games are already what most RTS games have been around and the range of games for that is pretty big. What we basically have never seen is the second category standing alone, that is, games that make players expand a lot but in a very disposable way. Closest realized thing to such a concept would be zone-control like RTS games like CoH or WiC. Not to be mistaken, I don't believe that alone makes for a superior concept, but I think that there is much more to be explored when you give the player more time to spend with his units than building up "the perfect base". | ||
|
Deleted User 26513
2376 Posts
On February 16 2014 00:04 Big J wrote: Can't really agree with this. I've played (the old) Dota a lot (back in the days), still I don't really get what is going on in the MOBA battles. Imo to get excited about MOBAs you have to know all the Heroes and spells involved. Like, when I tried to watch LoL, it was just random stuff and effects going off and people randomly dying, since I had no clue what possibilities were there. Saying that is like saying " You need to know the formations, every single one of the players and their abilities to be able to enjoy football." Nope you don't. All you need to know is that the ball is round and the teams are trying to put it into the net. Same with moba... You have 10 guys in teams of 5 and they try to kill each other. When one of them dies the crowd cheers - it's that easy. | ||
|
ConCentrate405
Brazil71 Posts
If someone sees a big army getting ready to fight a smaller army, and the smaller army wins by any reason (micro, lack of focus, doesn't matter for him) he will think that it was a good play by the winner and he will be excited about it. If 2 players have the same units (reaper vs reaper openins) and both players micro them back and forth, pull workers to help the weaker reaper, all that is cool to watch, if suddenly a new reaper joins and the lonely one has to retreat to marauder... holly crap thats awesome. He won't undesrtand a 200/200 with EMPs, storms, vikings flanking colossus, stimmed MM... but he can undesrtand smaller fights, too bad SC2 is not a game for this. Like most say, we need more smallers engagements, focusing on expanding and less deathballs turtles. Heroes could help but don't think they are the only answer. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
On February 16 2014 06:20 Pr0wler wrote: Saying that is like saying " You need to know the formations, every single one of the players and their abilities to be able to enjoy football." Nope you don't. All you need to know is that the ball is round and the teams are trying to put it into the net. Same with moba... You have 10 guys in teams of 5 and they try to kill each other. When one of them dies the crowd cheers - it's that easy. Im pretty sure he said what he meant to say. Kinda hard to throw an analogy at someone and then say because of that i know what you think about your experience is not at all what you claim to of experienced. What i can add though is that football is fucking tedious to watch, i have no idea why its so popular unless you get pissed and become emotionally invested in something that you don't give a fuck about. OK its been 70 minutes its 0-0 and for some reason im excited? ... no i'm fucking bored, im switching to watch cricket. I was thinking tonight that actually football commentators deserve a lot of praise. Thats probably a very fair criticism of mobas - in only watch dota which ive played for years so the fights for me are an anticipation of what i expect to happen vs what actually does. If you don't know what to expect then following will be extremely hard. this was something i felt more with hon and origional dota as effects were a bit insane. Dota2 is a becoming more like that as time goes on, but early it was fairly clean. | ||
|
starslayer
United States696 Posts
On February 16 2014 00:46 Faust852 wrote: The only reasons they are more popular is because 1) they are free, 2) they are mucch more accessible to begin with, 3) you can't report the fault on your mate when it's 1v1. this x100 first time ever playing lol i won just because of my team and and clicking on the heros hoping i would kill them first sc2 game i was so lost i got crushed but the computer with a 5 marine attack lol.sc2 is just scarier to get into when first starting out so much going on and while your trying to learn what to do.where lol and dota you can run around click stuff and be ok to a certain point. | ||
|
dohgg
310 Posts
| ||
|
ReMinD_
Croatia846 Posts
Dota 2 has this middle ground where casuals, 'noobs', semi-pros, pros and what-not can all enjoy the game. And I know plenty of people who were in top SC2 leagues yet can't progress in Dota 2 even after playing it for months. The game has a huge depth to it. Just from my own perspective, I enjoy watching SC2 tournaments more than Dota 2. But I enjoy playing Dota 2 and I can't stand playing SC2. I find it completely unfun. And this is coming from a guy that still plays War3, Age of Empires 2 and some oldies like Heroes 3. I like strategy games, but SC2 just doesn't cut it for me. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 16 2014 05:47 Blackfeather wrote: I totally agree. I think the problem for rts is that they are dumbed down a lot in terms of microability and strategy and instead we get the apm-spam-requirement of constantly increasing your base production. I wish it was the other way round. Also base-building is incredibly boring to watch. Problem is though to find the balance of micro and viewability. If every unit has special abilities like moba-heroes, the game gets to complex for beginners and viewers. I doubt that many of the viewers of dota 2 and lol dont play the game at least casually. yes. This is a problem that I think is best adressed in two ways: 1) instead of having a lot of special abilities in the game, units should have more basic abilities. That is abilities which every unit - or every unit of a certain category, say biological - possesses. As an example, it makes a lot of sense if every infantry unit has the ability to run, while, as you say, it is confusing if a marine can stim, a marauder can jump and a ghost has 3 specific spells. Taking SC2 as an example, units basically have the ability to attack and move. And that's it apart from special abilities like spells. Everything else - Patrol, Hold Position, Stop, Attack Move - is just a combination or fraction of attack and move. 2) Controls have to improve. This is the really complicated one, since we need as few keys as possible to make for the most precise and fast possible control - but also the one that is easiest to learn. And if it was that easy, RTS games would have done it already. However, I really need to point out how - at least Starcraft - has not even included the usage of the middle mouse button yet! Instead of 3buttons, we only use 2buttons with our better trained - right for righthanded, left for lefthanded - mousehand. Especially since we don't use the most potent button with 3uses - click, scroll up, scroll down. This is important for new players, since the more you can do with fewer mechanics, the more gameplayoptions are unlocked and the faster they can do what they want and stop feeling overwhelmed with learning gameplay basics. Additionally to those two points it is a lot about how you design the game. For example, Starcraft and similar RTS games allow for lots of early gamewinning moves and thereby make new players scared going on the map and using their units to the most potential action and fun. Instead, I think that we could learn a little bit from games like MOBAs by having a certain amount of early game protection (like towers). Or also question whether certain principles like fog of war have to be so strong early on, since they essentially force the defender to scout for what his opponent is doing, instead of forcing the wannabe aggressor to try to hide his gameplay. | ||
|
JimSocks
United States968 Posts
when you watch a starcraft battle you know who's winning. you actually see shit die and armies melt. moba games. heros keep spawning, running, kill some creep. i played warcraft III, and i still don't get whats up with moba games. playing on the other hand, is a different story. moba games easy to pick up and play. i get carried by teammates, i admit it. | ||
|
mostevil
United Kingdom611 Posts
On February 16 2014 06:39 Big J wrote: Additionally to those two points it is a lot about how you design the game. For example, Starcraft and similar RTS games allow for lots of early gamewinning moves and thereby make new players scared going on the map and using their units to the most potential action and fun. Instead, I think that we could learn a little bit from games like MOBAs by having a certain amount of early game protection (like towers). Or also question whether certain principles like fog of war have to be so strong early on, since they essentially force the defender to scout for what his opponent is doing, instead of forcing the wannabe aggressor to try to hide his gameplay. God that sounds awful... The MSC is already a nasty step in that direction. I'm not getting this at all. As someone who doesn't play MOBA's I find them unfathomable and somewhat boring to watch. I agree SC needs more micro and action to be more watchable, macroing up a deathball with the odd bit of light harras isn't interesting at all but that's not what it could or indeed should be with a nudge in the design. I think its way more impressive when someone's controlling 20 units instead of just one. People watch MOBAs because they play MOBAs, its got little to do with them being more watchable or entertaining. I'd rather have a smaller scene and a better game than dumb down to make it more moba-like to get the numbers in, but realistically that won't do it anyway, team games are just more popular for casuals, that's why casual SC2 playing is all team games and the arcade. | ||
|
JimSocks
United States968 Posts
example, i'm never gonna be a pro football player, but i play with my friends at the park all the time. even if somebody sucks, they can at least play some defense. i've played moba games with my friends on occassion as well just because they play it. i think starcraft is just harder to play, and i guess people don't want to get rekt 1v1. | ||
|
GolemMadness
Canada11044 Posts
While Starcraft 2 is definitely a lot harder to understand for new viewers compared to Brood War, I think it's definitely easier than a MOBA. It's very easy to tell what most units do just from looking at them, and most of them only do one thing. Anybody can look at the game and see that marines are basic soldiers who shoot stuff, or that zerglings are fast, fragile melee units. | ||
|
Xhiz
Portugal11 Posts
The personality of the players has a huge role too and koreans barely show it for the public viewership. Now if u say " blabla koreans also dominate League of Legends scene " but Fnatic vs C9 final would still have much more viewers than korean teams finals. And in League of Legends its much more excited to watch koreans since the casual viewership rarely watches them because of the so active NA and EU LCS, and its like a new level of plays. In Sc2 you are constantly watching koreans. Foreigners rarely make it out to quarter finals nowdays in most cups. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
From my very casual Starcraft viewpoint, most of what Starcraft is about is building your base, keeping your macro running, not getting distracted by the occasional fights, harassment, or whatever. It's about timings. However, at least to me, and I assume a lot of other non-hardcore fans, the macro of Starcraft is not very enjoyable to watch. I enjoy seeing which strategies the players choose, and how they handle split second decisions. It's a shame that it seems like the most important focus of the game to the players is not the same as the viewers. | ||
|
CutTheEnemy
Canada373 Posts
| ||
| ||
.
