The future of RTS games

Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed.

urboss

Austria1223 Posts

May 13 2014 20:01 GMT

Let's face it, MOBAs are showing huge success and traditional RTS games are barely produced anymore.
While I'm sure that the SC2 e-sport scene will continue to stay strong for years to come, the future also depends on the development of new titles. Concerning that, developers are more and more jumping off the RTS wagon.
I fear that Legacy of the Void will likely mark the end of an era.

So I started thinking, what could be improved on the classical RTS genre to make it more popular again?

Don't get me wrong, I love StarCraft and it is without a doubt the best game ever made.
The goal is not so much to transform StarCraft into something else, but rather to envision a new type of game that builds on elements from both StarCraft and MOBAs.
Something that could lead the way for the future of RTS games.

I guess a good approach is to take the best features from both games and merge them into something new.
So let's take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of StarCraft and MOBAs:

MOBAs:
Good stuff:
- Heroes
- Instant Action
- Team play

Bad stuff:
- Minions
- Lack of strategic depth

StarCraft:
Good stuff:
- Epic battles
- Big variety of units
- Strategic depth

Bad stuff:
- Too complicated for casuals
- Boring, repetitive phase of building stuff

One thing that I find quite lame about MOBAs is the auto-spawning of minions.
Killing ever replenishing computer controlled units makes me feel like Sisyphus and is the number one reason I don't enjoy LoL or Dota. Also, maybe I just don't get it, but MOBAs seem to be severely lacking in strategic depth. Not only that, controlling one unit at a time can get boring pretty fast if you are used to StarCraft. And let's be honest, it doesn't require nearly as much skill as StarCraft.

The thing that makes StarCraft kind of repetitive and what complicates the experience for casual players is that you have to construct buildings and take care of the economy. Unless you get the build order rignt, you are already behind. Unless you can keep your economy up, you will lose.
Even at the top level, there are long stretches of nothing much happening, where both players are just building stuff. What we are missing in StarCraft is the instant action of MOBAs.

So we are looking for a game that has a large variety of units that allows different strategies and gives us instant action, without us having to take care of economy.
We want to replace computer-controlled minions with player-controlled units. Also, we may want to add in the heroes, because it gives the players something they can identify with.

So here is how our new game may look like:

- We keep similar types of units as in StarCraft
- There are no minions
- We add in heroes that can resurrect
- There are no buildings that need to be built
- Units can be warped in at the start point (in batches)
- The warp in takes some time
- The opponent can always see what is being warped in ahead of time
- There is no economy: Gold for warp-ins increases steadily over time
- The number of players per team is fixed

Or in other words:
MOBA minus minions, plus warpable and controllable units, plus steady economy.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this! Would you want to play such a game?
Do you think it could be a missing link on the game market?
Does it have chances to become popular?

Do you have more suggestions, or completely new ideas?
Let's discuss it!
How do you think will the future of RTS games look like?

List of published RTS games:
+ Show Spoiler +

Here is a list of all RTS games since 1992 with a metascore of above 80%:
(excluding expansions)

1992 Dune 2
1994 Warcraft
1995 Command & Conquer
1995 Warcraft 2
1996 C&C Red Alert
1996 Z
1997 Age of Empires
1997 Dark Reign
1997 Enemy Nations
1997 Total Annihiliation
1998 StarCraft
1999 Age of Empires 2
1999 Warzone 2100
2001 C&C Red Alert 2
2001 Empire Earth
2001 Stronghold
2001 Cossacks
2002 Age of Mythology
2002 Warcraft 3
2003 C&C Generals
2003 Rise of Nations
2004 LotR: Middle Earth
2004 Dawn of War
2005 Age of Empires 3
2005 Empire Earth 2
2006 Company of Heroes
2006 LotR: Middle Earth 2
2007 C&C 3
2007 Supreme Commander
2007 World in Conflict
2008 C&C: Red Alert 3
2009 Dawn of War 2
2010 StarCraft 2
2012 Wargame

RTT definition:
+ Show Spoiler +

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_tactics

[image loading]

cRTS ..................... classical RTS
RTT ....................... real-time tactics

Dev Studios:
+ Show Spoiler +

Poll:
+ Show Spoiler +

Poll: The RTS market is...

declining (160)

67%

steady (35)

15%

dead (29)

12%

exploding (8)

3%

growing (7)

3%

239 total votes

Your vote: The RTS market is...

(Vote): declining
(Vote): dead
(Vote): steady
(Vote): growing
(Vote): exploding

Related Links:
+ Show Spoiler +

Articles:
Is the RTS genre dying? - 16BitKings
Ironclad On Why RTS Is Dying
Is Change Inherently Good?
RTS - A Dying Market - Culture Mass
Is the RTS Genre Dying? - PC Gamer
Khaldor's Thoughts On the Future of RTS
The RTS is dead! - Malaysian Gamer

Reddit threads:
The Decline of RTS Games
The Future of RTS Games
The Future of Competitive RTS Games
The Future of Competitive RTS Games - Part II
How Does Reddit Feel About RTS Games?
What Is the Future of RTS Gaming?
Is Dota the Successor to the RTS Genre?

Upcoming RTS games:
+ Show Spoiler +

List of ideas mentioned in this thread:
+ Show Spoiler +

Improve team play maps
Have battles last longer
Reduce the amount of multitasking required
Introduce hero units
Improve the social/chat experience
Create a constantly changing environment that keeps players engaged
Speed up the initial phase
Create a universally accepted "BGH" mode
Have slower games with more time to react
Allow better chances for comebacks
Simplify unit control and UI
Remove the importance of well-defined builds
Let it have an easier learning curve
Make laddering less "hard work" and less stressfully competitive
Allow for more positional tactics
Eliminate the boring phases of reaching supply cap and remaxing supply
Make players find resources by exploring the map
Create two entirely different games for hardcore and casual players
Improve plot and writing of the single player campaign
Make the game free-to-play, with microtransactions
Make team play the default mode
Put less emphasis on big explosive units, more on light and fast units
Make the design of the units more interesting
Allow the players to customize their units/buildings/race
Make ladder games shorter (~20min)
Get rid of base-building
Let players develop characteristic playstyles / have favorite units
Allow players to be good at one thing and horrible at another
Have a LOT more different races (Civ like)
Place more emphasis on arcade multiplayer
Have a more complex resource system: food, wood, gold, gas etc..
Emphasize tactics with good map/unit design
Create a massive, large scale MMMORTS that spans the whole globe
Devote your resources into a revivable, upgradeable 'hero' unit
Make RTS games less fixated on keyboard/mouse input methods
Bring RTS games to other platforms (browser, mobile)
Avoid concentrated resource spots, spread them across the map
Make the game start at stone age and progress toward the future (Civ like)
Find better ways to select and command units / buildings
Let units have defensive stances, formations, inventories and loadouts
Have fewer units per player (less learning curve)
Disallow massive hard counters
Have upgrades for units that are mutually exclusive
Include early base defenses at the spawning locations to avoid rushes
Scouting should be less of a choice and more of a requirement
Make the games less of a click-orgy
Team games: let players control specific types of units
Team games: have one master strategist responsible for building stuff
Let AI take care of economy, let the player focus on strategy/tactics
Make sure that beginners only face other beginners on the ladder
Include diplomacy, building wonders, gaining territory
Remove the supply cap
Make the RTS genre "trendy" again
FFA games: On defeat, respawn as an ally of the defeater
Make it possible for spectators to join in the middle of a game
Let players start on two bases
Randomize the buildings/units/resources the players start with
Have matches with different objectives (a la Counter Strike)
Let players pick from units to forge their own race at the start of the game
Instant Action from the get-go
Let each unit have more space, avoid "clumping up"
Lessen the downtime, increase the "action time".

-HuShang-

Canada393 Posts

May 13 2014 20:08 GMT

I HATE heroes. That's all i'm going to say

Edit: Actually, everything you said that was bad about starcraft I disagree with. The complexity of starcraft is what makes it beautiful. Too complicated for casuals? It's only as complicated as you make it. My little brother plays starcraft, he's 8. He just makes units and fights with them and has lots of fun. What's complicated about that?

Garrl

Scotland1980 Posts

May 13 2014 20:09 GMT

- Lack of strategic depth

pretty... sweeping statement you have there. You really think mobas have a lack of strategic depth?

synapse

China13814 Posts

May 13 2014 20:11 GMT

On May 14 2014 05:01 urboss wrote:
- Lack of strategic depth

I'm sure you knew you were gonna get flak for this...

I disagree with a lot of your pros and cons. I think both genres have a lot of strategic depth (dota having a bit more than LoL due to more versatile items/heroes and more complicated drafting). Hard to argue whether having hero units is a good or bad thing, the starcraft community really hated the introduction of thors in the beginning for example. Team play is a bonus, but both genres suffer from relatively stale early games. I also wouldn't say epic battles are limited to RTS games.

Creeps/minions are totally legitimate if you think of MOBAs not as MOBAs but rather lane-pushing games.

Saechiis

Netherlands4989 Posts

May 13 2014 20:11 GMT

That sounds like the most boring shit ever. Really? All you do is make units and micro them? What's the potential for strategic depth in that?

amazingxkcd

GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts

May 13 2014 20:12 GMT

- Lack of strategic depth

This may apply to league, but definitely not to dota.

-HuShang-

Canada393 Posts

May 13 2014 20:13 GMT

Basicall you want nexus wars eh? It's in the arcade

Cheren

United States2911 Posts

May 13 2014 20:21 GMT

It's a little strange that Dota's learning curve has lead multiple companies to make easier-to-learn versions (I'm not sure LoL is "easier" at a high level with how far Koreans have pushed the skill cap) like LoL, Smite, Dawngate, Heroes of the Storm, Infinite Crisis, etc., but no one's tried to make a Starcraft clone with an easier learning curve.

I'm not sure how you'd make an RTS with an easier learning curve, I'm just surprised it hasn't been attempted.

xuanzue

Colombia1747 Posts

May 13 2014 20:22 GMT

On May 14 2014 05:08 -HuShang- wrote:
I HATE heroes. That's all i'm going to say

Edit: Actually, everything you said that was bad about starcraft I disagree with. The complexity of starcraft is what makes it beautiful. Too complicated for casuals? It's only as complicated as you make it. My little brother plays starcraft, he's 8. He just makes units and fights with them and has lots of fun. What's complicated about that?

completely agree with you.

Valve and dota are making a lot of things right, still I only watch starcraft.

the good thing about mobas is that they are free, and they force people to play in team, so every player will try to bring his friends to the game, just to have a team. on the other hand starcraft is extremely focused on 1v1

Ctone23

United States1841 Posts

May 13 2014 20:24 GMT

#10

Tons of generalization at the beginning which makes it hard to take this serious. I agree mobas are doing well but to say SC2 is barely producing seems way false.

nkr

Sweden5451 Posts

May 13 2014 20:24 GMT

#11

Things like these go in cycles. When a game is popular a lot of developers jump the bandwagon and produce mobas. League hit the scene hard 2-3 years ago and now all the games that followed are hitting the market.

Eventually the market is oversaturated with mobas (I'd say that's right about now) and developing a new one won't be worth it. Then you'll have one company innovating, creating a new hype and the cycle repeats.

There are companies with established titles that will continue to be released as long as they make a profit, such as CoD, even though the genre isn't as popular right now. HotS was released at a bad time when mobas were peaking. Hopefully LotV will be released at a time when no new scenes are growing and you'll have a new hype (if the game is good).

plogamer

Canada3132 Posts

May 13 2014 20:28 GMT

#12

I usually watch Starcraft 2. But this one time I was watching Dota 2, someone in my family noted that the casting had improved. So sad.

Starcraft 2 casting is often times like listening to a golf game or test cricket match. Ugh.

Blargh

United States2103 Posts

May 13 2014 20:30 GMT

#13

Honestly, SC2 does not have that much strategic depth. Also, the whole laning concept is not fun at all, imo. The only reason I like heroes is because I like SOME heroes. Like Cassiopeia, Ezreal, Lux, other skill-shot ones, etc. But I do not like the hero concept.

If I could ask for anything in an RTS, it would be to have more positional strategy and easy vision. Not knowing what your opponent is doing increases randomness and guessing. Also 1v1. At most, 2v2. Anything above is just annoying because if I am going to be competitive, I am going to be competitive individually, because that's the only thing I can influence.

ShiaoPi

TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts

May 13 2014 20:34 GMT

#14

so you want Warcraft IV? :DDD

Cheren

United States2911 Posts

May 13 2014 20:37 GMT

#15

On May 14 2014 05:34 ShiaoPi wrote:
so you want Warcraft IV? :DDD

I think a WC4 would be much more successful than WC3, the modern audience is already very used to heroes in competitive games, that was a pretty new concept when WC3 came out.

GinDo

3327 Posts

May 13 2014 20:38 GMT

#16

Sounds like CC4, which utterly failed.

Saechiis

Netherlands4989 Posts

May 13 2014 20:38 GMT

#17

I'd like for a mass army game like Starcraft to have a bit more casting micro. For the average viewer forming a good concave and stimming/ sieging up or popping a guardian shield isn't anything to get hyped over. When there's obvious spells being hit that make a clear visual impact it creates tension. When to armies just position and one dies that is really hard to get into when you're not aware of the complexity of the buildup to that point and the mechanical skill behind it.

Perhaps there's a point to be made that Starcraft is too complex of a game, making it hard to convey to an audience what is impressive about it. As a player you know it's hard to keep track of your army and harass, scout and keep up your macro at the same time. Covering options, hitting timings, none of these skills are obvious when you observe the game. MOBAs in comparison have a really clear point of focus and while it doesn't require the same mechanical skill as the Starcraft titles, to the average viewer it will seem more impressive in an intuitive way.

GinDo

3327 Posts

May 13 2014 20:39 GMT

#18

On May 14 2014 05:28 plogamer wrote:
I usually watch Starcraft 2. But this one time I was watching Dota 2, someone in my family noted that the casting had improved. So sad.

Starcraft 2 casting is often times like listening to a golf game or test cricket match. Ugh.

That is why I like to watch the Korean Casters. So much energy.

imJealous

United States1382 Posts

May 13 2014 20:40 GMT

#19

I think the BW/SC2 model is still very capable of producing an RTS game that can maintain mainstream popularity, its just a few small jarring things about SC2 that have kept it from being able to maintain the size of player base that it has the potential for:

- No universally accepted "BGH" mode (we have it now with the extension mods, but it came too late for most of it's target audience and there isn't a simple, highly advertised way to find such games)
- Abysmal, abysmal, abysmal team play maps!
- The way that smart-firing AI (no overkill), unit clumping from smart pathing, abilities like forcefield and fungal, and the bonus damage model in SC2 cause armies to disappear in a split second with little that a casual player can do to rebound from a mistake

Starcraft and Broodwar came out while I was in middle school and throughout my school years literally every one who played video games played Starcraft. Since SC2 has come out, every single person I played the game with growing up tried the game and ended up giving up on it for reasons that boil down to these same three points.

Sapphire.lux

Romania2620 Posts

May 13 2014 20:41 GMT

#20

On May 14 2014 05:38 GinDo wrote:
Sounds like CC4, which utterly failed.

lol yeah

I also hate heroes in RTS.

EDIT: base building is a key part of why i like RTS

1 2 3 4 5 79 80 81 Next

Please or register to reply.

The future of RTS games

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming