|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
i've always felt that if there is a future for an economic RTS with high-intensity micro and mechanical skill it should involve a lot of varying modes and settings you can apply to your units, such as defensive stances, formations, maybe even inventories and loadouts, etc. that have a high reward for strategic use but also some risk/time investment involved to avoid it just being like forcefields in SC2 where if you click fast enough and accurately enough you just played perfectly. i played a game called APOX on steam that had a few of these concepts, but unfortunately it was a godawful game so the concepts didn't go anywhere
i realize this is a vague idea, but one potential concept could be marines or other infantry units dropping down and going prone at the right time (similar to tanks sieging up at the right time). maybe more concepts like the thor's payload except fleshed out better and with more diverse strategic options. i realize balance gets tricky when you have different options and one is usually stronger or better, but if you have enough different modes and abilities i think it's possible to have a sort of "asymmetrical imbalance" where even if (x) hardcounters (y), (z) can also hardcounter (x) and it's a matter of on the fly thinking and applying practical knowledge to an engagement
i also believe in more terrain features (move slower in a desert, cover in bushes for infantry, etc.) and more ability to recover from bad engagements
of course i'm not a game designer and i'm not implying that these things are as simple as "just do it" for people who create games. just things i'd be interested in seeing
edit: in short i guess i'm saying games should be more like TvT 
|
It would be nice if sc2 had a good casual mode option for people who want that, to help build the player base. I considered trying to mod that once; but it'd be quite hard to do (modding-wise, design wise I have a good sense of how to do that, but it's a lot of coding)
|
On May 14 2014 23:06 urboss wrote:
Classic RTS game developers are caught in a conundrum:
It's not sustainable anymore to release RTS games with focus on single player.
Yet it's also very hard to sell a build-based RTS game that is only multiplayer.
I don't see why its not sustainable to focus on the single player. There was an interview with one of the SC2 devs a while ago in which they said that a majority of the people who play the game play single player exclusively. We don't hear much about them as part of the #esports scene, but there are a lot of people that bought and played SC2 basically for the single player.
Also, games like AoM or AoE are the kinds of games that people still play either alone, or with a couple friends, not in a general ladder. I know that I'm hardly the only person who would be willing to shell out some money for a game that I can play casually against the computer. Especially if you have a good enough AI.
|
On May 14 2014 23:38 zlefin wrote:
It would be nice if sc2 had a good casual mode option for people who want that, to help build the player base. I considered trying to mod that once; but it'd be quite hard to do (modding-wise, design wise I have a good sense of how to do that, but it's a lot of coding)
honestly i think 4v4 IS casual mode, i'm a competitive player and i still go to 4v4 for casual fun. a 1v1 casual mode would be counterintuitive because in 1v1 your mistakes are automatically and harshly punished just by virtue of your opponent playing superior, and the only way to play more successfully is to directly increase your applied knowledge and skill. it's a highly competitive game mode. i think the social aspect of 4v4 as well as balance being kind of messed up/irrelevant make it a perfect casual start for any sc2 player
|
Interesting, I personally see the future of RTS being quite similar to starcraft 2,
fewer units (less of a learning curve)
slower, more involved battles
upgrades for units that are mutually exclusive (ie, combat shield OR stim)
and even more simplified economy/infrastructure than sc2, perhaps to the point of Desert Strike
And there are notable RTS still being produced, if not at a AAA budget.
|
On May 14 2014 23:41 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 23:06 urboss wrote:
Classic RTS game developers are caught in a conundrum:
It's not sustainable anymore to release RTS games with focus on single player.
Yet it's also very hard to sell a build-based RTS game that is only multiplayer. I don't see why its not sustainable to focus on the single player. There was an interview with one of the SC2 devs a while ago in which they said that a majority of the people who play the game play single player exclusively. We don't hear much about them as part of the #esports scene, but there are a lot of people that bought and played SC2 basically for the single player. Also, games like AoM or AoE are the kinds of games that people still play either alone, or with a couple friends, not in a general ladder. I know that I'm hardly the only person who would be willing to shell out some money for a game that I can play casually against the computer. Especially if you have a good enough AI.
If you are a game dev and you want to release a game right now you have the following problem:
SC2 is the industry standard.
Other than SC2 there is basically nothing other than a bunch of old titles that some people play from time to time.
So there is no real market for RTS anymore other than another StarCraft game.
If you deviate from this SC2 standard, you better have a damn good game in your hands.
If you don't deviate and make another StarCraft clone, no one's gonna play it.
|
On May 14 2014 22:17 Ctone23 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 22:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 14 2014 21:55 Ctone23 wrote:On May 14 2014 21:40 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 14 2014 21:31 SatedSC2 wrote:On May 14 2014 21:20 Incognoto wrote:
Stop mucking up an otherwise interesting discussion Then don't get into a semantics argument with someone who actually understands the language you're arguing in. All you've done is go on about what niche actually means when I couldn't care less; you still haven't given me any reasons why RTS games being in a niche is a bad thing...  I actually don't understand your point. Being a niche is bad if you want diversity, this should be pretty self-explanatory if you ask me. It is fine that you are totally pleased with sc2 and don't even want other options, but it in itself (no other options) is a bad thing. Why are people stretching what the word "niche" means? RTS games have plenty of diversity, both in terms of players and strategies, but people get all kinds of butt rustled when they see another game with 3x the viewer count. I don't see why that matters. I always think of American sports, some are just more popular than others, but that doesn't mean the less popular sports are any less complicated. You completely miss the point. I am saying it is bad that rts players don't really have other options than sc2 (well there obviously are older games, but that isn't really the same). Meanwhile other genres get new games on an almost monthly basis, that fact alone is bad. No I understand what you mean, I was speaking more broadly then directly at you, probably shouldn't have quoted you but I didn't agree with your statement that being a niche is bad if you want diversity. Even if you make a lot of quality RTS games, I still think the genre is a niche within the gaming world. I usually try out new RTS games that come out (when and if they do) and the overwhelming feeling I get is that Blizzard is 10x the developer, each and every time. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I am of the opinion that a quality RTS game takes a lot of time,money, and effort to be successful. We the community demand a lot from an RTS, and rightfully so, something I don't see other RTS developers being capable of at the moment.
I know how you feel when trying new RTS games, but the main thing that bugs me is just the "feel" of unit control never quite matches SC2. I actually think that it wouldn't be hard for a company to make a decent RTS in the SC2 engine. Decent as in feels good, looks decent and is fun to play, though it would definitely take a huge amount of effort money to match SC2 in playerbase.
|
On May 14 2014 23:43 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 23:38 zlefin wrote:
It would be nice if sc2 had a good casual mode option for people who want that, to help build the player base. I considered trying to mod that once; but it'd be quite hard to do (modding-wise, design wise I have a good sense of how to do that, but it's a lot of coding) honestly i think 4v4 IS casual mode, i'm a competitive player and i still go to 4v4 for casual fun. a 1v1 casual mode would be counterintuitive because in 1v1 your mistakes are automatically and harshly punished just by virtue of your opponent playing superior, and the only way to play more successfully is to directly increase your applied knowledge and skill. it's a highly competitive game mode. i think the social aspect of 4v4 as well as balance being kind of messed up/irrelevant make it a perfect casual start for any sc2 player
I disagree as I think rushing is way too big a part of this mode. I think you gotta take the whole "timing"/refined build order aspect of the game away in order to really appeal to casuals.
|
On May 14 2014 23:51 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 23:43 Waise wrote:On May 14 2014 23:38 zlefin wrote:
It would be nice if sc2 had a good casual mode option for people who want that, to help build the player base. I considered trying to mod that once; but it'd be quite hard to do (modding-wise, design wise I have a good sense of how to do that, but it's a lot of coding) honestly i think 4v4 IS casual mode, i'm a competitive player and i still go to 4v4 for casual fun. a 1v1 casual mode would be counterintuitive because in 1v1 your mistakes are automatically and harshly punished just by virtue of your opponent playing superior, and the only way to play more successfully is to directly increase your applied knowledge and skill. it's a highly competitive game mode. i think the social aspect of 4v4 as well as balance being kind of messed up/irrelevant make it a perfect casual start for any sc2 player I disagree as I think rushing is way too big a part of this mode. I think you gotta take the whole "timing"/refined build order aspect of the game away in order to really appeal to casuals.
Rushing is a big part, but its a pretty simple team strategy that even casuals can manage, and when nobody does rush, they can turtle up, complete the tech tree and have big battles (typical casual RTS play). Plus you don't have to blame yourself when you lose.
I think if Blizzard put some more focus on the team play aspect of the game, not just the experience but on the visibility of it, that it would be a decent way to bring newer players and potentially convert more casual players into the more competitive side.
|
RTS are 1v1 games, stuff like MOBAs are teamgames.
Also the stuff the OP describes sounds basically almost exactly like warcraft 3.
While the game was succesful and basically marked the birth of all MOBAs it was since shown that it is better to go into one dorection, either make a MOBA or make an RTS, but not mix the two.
I think RTS games will still be made and have their place, but when it comes to esports MOBAs will definitly remain number one.
PS: of course you can still play rts games as team games, but they are not developed like that.
Maybe another future thing would be team focused RTS games.
Also I think the fact that OP complains about killing minions and lack of strategy shows that he hasn't really played MOBAs
|
On May 14 2014 23:51 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 23:43 Waise wrote:On May 14 2014 23:38 zlefin wrote:
It would be nice if sc2 had a good casual mode option for people who want that, to help build the player base. I considered trying to mod that once; but it'd be quite hard to do (modding-wise, design wise I have a good sense of how to do that, but it's a lot of coding) honestly i think 4v4 IS casual mode, i'm a competitive player and i still go to 4v4 for casual fun. a 1v1 casual mode would be counterintuitive because in 1v1 your mistakes are automatically and harshly punished just by virtue of your opponent playing superior, and the only way to play more successfully is to directly increase your applied knowledge and skill. it's a highly competitive game mode. i think the social aspect of 4v4 as well as balance being kind of messed up/irrelevant make it a perfect casual start for any sc2 player I disagree as I think rushing is way too big a part of this mode. I think you gotta take the whole "timing"/refined build order aspect of the game away in order to really appeal to casuals.
I agree. I think early base defenses at the spawning locations could solve those problems though.
|
On May 14 2014 19:59 agahamsorr0w wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 19:41 Incognoto wrote:On May 14 2014 19:38 agahamsorr0w wrote: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. sc2 casters miss some basic knowledge of the metagame and on top of that they miss small things like gas timings and such. they usually like to overhype and talk about brackets for half the game instead of the match. Wouldn't gas timing be something more important for the player to finish? as observers, we and the casters see perfectly well what tech route any player will be going. Tastosis at very least does a very good job of talking about metagame and not talking about irrelevant details. the gas timing can determine if a player goes aggro, if he goes tech or if he stays defensive. this obviously doesnt apply to pvp where the more gas the better, but in other matchups players tend to play around with gas a lot. most casual players dont know any of these things and predicting something based on this information makes watching the game a lot more interesting. it doesnt even have to be gas timing. it could be delaying third or making excess overlords but making clear and accurate predictions is an entertaining skill to have as a caster. i agree talking about the metagame is better. but tasteless and artosis and maybe tod are the only ones with metagame knowledge. the rest, as i said, rather talk 10 minutes about how much of a struggle it has been for the player to get to where they are and are stuck in the wol meta. i dont know though. i am not a casual player so maybe it doesnt bother the rest. most of the times i dont even listen to the casters. miniraser and catz have provided the best casting ive ever heard in the eu mlg qualifiers to give you an example of which casters i like to watch.
I can look at the supply and the production tab to see when the gas gets taken.
And it's the observer who is responsible for making sure we see all that information. If someone wants to really get to know timings, there are other methodsdesigned specifically for that - like studying professional replays, or watching Day9, etc.
Like you said, you're not a casual. The vast majority are casual. To casuals, casters are entertainers. Not SC2 professors.
|
On May 15 2014 00:07 Ai.Cola wrote:
RTS are 1v1 games, stuff like MOBAs are teamgames.
Also the stuff the OP describes sounds basically almost exactly like warcraft 3.
While the game was succesful and basically marked the birth of all MOBAs it was since shown that it is better to go into one dorection, either make a MOBA or make an RTS, but not mix the two.
...
In what way was it shown that a mix of MOBA and RTS doesn't work?
Can you give some examples?
|
On May 15 2014 00:18 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 00:07 Ai.Cola wrote:
RTS are 1v1 games, stuff like MOBAs are teamgames.
Also the stuff the OP describes sounds basically almost exactly like warcraft 3.
While the game was succesful and basically marked the birth of all MOBAs it was since shown that it is better to go into one dorection, either make a MOBA or make an RTS, but not mix the two.
...
In what way was it shown that a mix of MOBA and RTS doesn't work? Can you give some examples?
yeah. Warcraft 3. It was highly successful 
|
On May 14 2014 23:33 Waise wrote:
i've always felt that if there is a future for an economic RTS with high-intensity micro and mechanical skill it should involve a lot of varying modes and settings you can apply to your units, such as defensive stances, formations,
I would love it if we could have formations and defensive stances. I used to play LOTR BFME(Lord of the rings) and you could do that, it was pretty cool.
This could also help with those times when you look away from your army for a split second only to be destroyed by banelings or something. Of course you could do it yourself before looking away but could be a cool feature.
|
On May 14 2014 23:51 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 23:43 Waise wrote:On May 14 2014 23:38 zlefin wrote:
It would be nice if sc2 had a good casual mode option for people who want that, to help build the player base. I considered trying to mod that once; but it'd be quite hard to do (modding-wise, design wise I have a good sense of how to do that, but it's a lot of coding) honestly i think 4v4 IS casual mode, i'm a competitive player and i still go to 4v4 for casual fun. a 1v1 casual mode would be counterintuitive because in 1v1 your mistakes are automatically and harshly punished just by virtue of your opponent playing superior, and the only way to play more successfully is to directly increase your applied knowledge and skill. it's a highly competitive game mode. i think the social aspect of 4v4 as well as balance being kind of messed up/irrelevant make it a perfect casual start for any sc2 player I disagree as I think rushing is way too big a part of this mode. I think you gotta take the whole "timing"/refined build order aspect of the game away in order to really appeal to casuals.
I think the best way to fix this is to make static defense stronger. SC2 is a fun game because you can do a lot with a smaller amount of units than games like AoM or AoE, but its always going to be more fast-paced and build order based because static defense isn't as strong, and you MUST expand in order to not lose.
|
I stopped playing SC2 in WoL because Infestor/Brood Lords every game, even in tournaments. Then I tried HotS and then it was Swarm Hosts every game. I still watched tournaments but that has stopped because only protoss wins tournaments and you could bet on a protoss to win the tournament and you'll win more often than not.
Now I watch LoL because its harder to know for sure who is going to win (when SKT isnt playing). While alot of champs are picked often, its not the same thing over and over (Swarm Hosts or Infestor/Brood Lords)
|
On May 14 2014 05:01 urboss wrote:Let's face it, MOBAs are showing huge success and traditional RTS games are barely produced anymore. + 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
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
Stopped reading there. Not sure how it is for Lol, but SC2's 'strategic depth' is nonexistent compared to Dota 2.
|
On May 15 2014 00:31 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 23:51 Hider wrote:On May 14 2014 23:43 Waise wrote:On May 14 2014 23:38 zlefin wrote:
It would be nice if sc2 had a good casual mode option for people who want that, to help build the player base. I considered trying to mod that once; but it'd be quite hard to do (modding-wise, design wise I have a good sense of how to do that, but it's a lot of coding) honestly i think 4v4 IS casual mode, i'm a competitive player and i still go to 4v4 for casual fun. a 1v1 casual mode would be counterintuitive because in 1v1 your mistakes are automatically and harshly punished just by virtue of your opponent playing superior, and the only way to play more successfully is to directly increase your applied knowledge and skill. it's a highly competitive game mode. i think the social aspect of 4v4 as well as balance being kind of messed up/irrelevant make it a perfect casual start for any sc2 player I disagree as I think rushing is way too big a part of this mode. I think you gotta take the whole "timing"/refined build order aspect of the game away in order to really appeal to casuals. I think the best way to fix this is to make static defense stronger. SC2 is a fun game because you can do a lot with a smaller amount of units than games like AoM or AoE, but its always going to be more fast-paced and build order based because static defense isn't as strong, and you MUST expand in order to not lose.
static is weak in SC2 because of cannon/bunker rushes and turtling 3hatch zergs.
|
Man, the last 5–6 years has been really slow for RTS (although there's surely some on there which are lesser-known, but where does one draw the line?). It's kinda hard/daunting to compete with things like Starcraft (2) though so that might contribute to the explanation.
I don't think Stronghold was really much of a standard RTS as far as I remember, but I didn't play multiplayer so maybe that was a bit different.
I think it would be nice to see another Battlezone/Savage (savage is more of a stretch) RTS hybrid. Neither of those games were ever particularly popular or competitive, but I think there's some good potential there for some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
