On May 15 2014 09:13 Sapphire.lux wrote: I'm glad you like the game so much, but there are many fans, pro players, ex pro players, map makers, team owners, casters, etc that are super frustrated by the lack of communication and action from Blizz in changing and improving key aspects of the game.
I think i've said all there is to say about it. If you keep repeating the same stuff over and over then we'll agree to disagree.
it is not worth it for Blizzard to devote additional resources to a declining genre. this is why Blizzard is not giving you "action".
and Blizzard's ACTIONS speak louder than their words.
On May 15 2014 09:18 marigoldran wrote: One of the reasons I'm not playing the game as much is because on multi-player it's too damn stressful. Other friends feel the same way.
With the laddering system, Blizzard made it too competitive.
Good riddance. If you want to feel like a winner all the time? play an MMO. Not feel bad after a loss? play a team moba so you can blame others instead. The competitive head-to-head aspect is what makes Starcraft so great in an era of increasingly casual games for players who can't handle losing.
On May 15 2014 09:04 marigoldran wrote: Well, that attitude of yours is part of the reason Starcraft 2 is less popular than LOL. If the goal is to make the game a greater commercial success, than it needs to be made more accessible.
I'm a diamond player btw. In reality probably closer to high Plat/low diamond, but I beat someone called ByunPrime on the American ladder with an early roach attack against one-base hellion cheese and I jumped to high diamond from mid plat.
Perhaps that is the case, I don't see the casual as a ripe fruit ready for RTS to pick them, nor do I care much for MOBAs regardless of their success.
As I outlined earlier in this thread I'd like to see something really ambitious in terms of an RTS, namely an MMO with you and friends and foe battling it out for supremacy in whole regions of space in a variety of roles, with battles counting for something.
On May 15 2014 09:28 Fetchystick wrote: Has anyone mentioned Supreme Commander yet? I believe it has a whole new depth to bring into the RTS genre. Look it up when you get the time.
Let's look at the core differences between Starcraft and Supreme Commander. I'll only mention the advantages each one has over the other, not the disadvantages.
SC: -More mico-focused -More APM-focused -Fast-paced (compared to supreme commander) -Depth in units comes mostly from their abilities (stimpacks, spells, etc.) as well as micro interactions (marines vs banelings, roach/ling vs protoss 2base allins). -Extremely spectator friendly (action-packed, multiple fights, less buildup, common harass, fun micromanagement) -Racial mechanics pose interesting interactions for newer players -Resources: an economic (minerals) and tech (gas) for easy understanding. More basic stuff for newbies/spectators -More chances to come back from loss -- You have time to remax usually, counterattacks have long travel distance, only disadvantage is army/position loss. -Highly multitask-oriented macromanagement.
Supreme Commander: -Physics simulation: every tank, every bullet, every missile is simulated in the engine. -Depth of units comes from the physics engine (aurora's fast turn speed, speed difference interceptors vs bombers vs platform crafft, Walls blocking shots) -Big armies: 1000 unit cap -Big units: 4 tech levels, with experimentals that are called "game-enders" for a reason -Resources: a finite (Mass), infinite (energy) and manipulable (time). Allows for complex strategies, plays can be made with economic buildings alone -Intelligence warfare: more interesting ways to scout -Naval warfare, why not -TEAM PLAY. The infamous Seton's Clutch, a great 4v4 RTS map -Somewhat automated macromanagement, takes away the repetitive parts but lets you make your own base from scratch still.
Between the two, neither one has more strategic depth than the other. Starcraft is all about quick reading and quick thinking, while SupCom is more about planning a situation and carrying it out, manipulating your resources in creative ways to meet your goal. SupCom games generally last a little longer, and if they don't then it was often over in one or two early fights.
The main advantage SupCom has over starcraft? Seton's Clutch. That was probably the best 4v4 map in any RTS, with cool team roles, huge battles, and ridiculous strategic depth. Those games lasted for hours and they were FUN. No game has made me feel more intelligent or strategic than supreme commander has.
The main advantage Starcraft has over SupCom: Spectator friendly- mechanics. Frankly, supreme commander is boring as all hell to watch, it's too slow because that's the appropriate speed for when you're playing. Also, being good at starcraft is much more impressive than being good at supreme commander.
All in all, both games can learn from each other, and I believe that the next big RTS may be a mix between the two. Frankly, it looks like all the attention SupCom has garnered has all went to Planetary Annihilation, which is a real shame because I feel like that game takes everything cool about SupCom and generally dumps all over it. There's no need to change RTS fundamentally to make it more popular, it's just going to need to pick the best aspects from these two games and turn them into one. Then we might see a new killer RTS.
Yes.
Especially the automated macro. Really useful. Also I hate the supply cap for starcraft 2 in pro games. It's so stupid watching people throw away units.
How about a mix of Starcraft and Supreme Commander, but everyone starts with some basic early game fighting units? Also add in "special zones" on the map where control of the special zones with early units will net you small amounts of resources (the equivalent of 1-2 scvs mining)?
On May 15 2014 04:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Dustin is the game design lead for SC2, and he is going where the money is. the expansion is taking so long its leading guys like u to make idle speculation.
Taking so long? One year has passed since the last one. We will hear about it at Blizzcon.
You know nothing, JimmyJ!
thanks for your big prediction. we can revisit this in November. i predict no LotV content @ Blizzcon 2014 and LOTS of MOBA content at Blizzcon 2014.
the team is working on the MOBA not on LotV.
now, just because i believe you are incorrect in this one fairly meaningless matter does not mean i'd extend that to a ridiculous degree by saying "you know nothing".
i'll leave the baffoonery to you.
Not of fan of Game of Thrones then? "baffoonery" lol
It's not out the the realm of possibility that LOTV will not be at Blizzcon, but even so, it will come. Going all doomsday about it is strange considering we've had a game release just one year ago plus the unprecedented Blizzard involvement and financial support through WSC.
If it were up to me i would overhaul SC2 in the next exp. and test the crap out of it for a 2016 release.
LOL, so now you're backing off of your prediction. my prediction still stands.
i like SC2's competitive multiplayer as is. maybe some very small refinements in balance can be made. but, over all its good.
the job Blizzard did with SC2 outside of the area of competitive multiplayer is just incredible. the campaign is great., the arcade is great, the "galaxy builder" is great. i could keep listing stuff and just saying "great" 50 times.
over all, Browder and Kim can really be proud of what they've done.
the RTS game type doesn't make the kind of money many other genres do and we're lucky to have game designers like Browder and Kim who love the genre like we do.
we're all pretty luck Starcraft is Morhaime's favourite game.
Really?
Shareholders must have had their head if they heard about Blizz rebuffing Ice Frog for Dota and BroodWar's success in Korea is a cultural phenomenon. There is so much money on the table with their brand that it would be insane for them not to touch StarCraft. Unfortunately their execution has been poor and as evident from the crap units released with HoTS they are not budgeting enough staff to the game's development.
Blizzard did way better with HotS units than they did with Broodwar units...Broodwar units really took a lot of the flow and depth out of the game and were way too "counter" instead of units that gave an edge. (Note, valks, devourers, and corsair were all designed as hard counters; lurkers were designed as hard counters, and medics...ugh...) I personally like the hellbat, viper, and mothership core that came with HotS although the tempest, swarmhost, and widow mine are not so fun). Sorry, StarCraft 2 is one of the most successful games ever released and also is probably more successful than any game as an esport before StarCraft 2.
Valks devourers and sairs are designed as hard counters yes, but they're also inefficient versus everything else. Having those units gives each race an option to beat mass air, I don't see how that's bad. The other counters can all be dealt with through good micro e.g. marine splitting versus lurkers and plague versus medics.
That's the point. Hard counters shouldn't exist. Although valks would bug out if you had enough air, but the game flowed better before the broodwar units. Zerg vs Terran lost a ton of its luster with the introduction of the medic and lurker. The free flowing vanilla games were much more fun in that matchup.
You have to remember that the big issue was how to deal with units that can concentrate fire power (scout, muta, and wraith)...well they nerfed the scout and wraith into oblivion and provided muta punishment. Notice the expansion also added the goliath range upgrade which was unavailable in vanilla but either greyed out or in the editor or something because we had talked about it long before broodwar.
On May 15 2014 04:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Dustin is the game design lead for SC2, and he is going where the money is. the expansion is taking so long its leading guys like u to make idle speculation.
Taking so long? One year has passed since the last one. We will hear about it at Blizzcon.
You know nothing, JimmyJ!
thanks for your big prediction. we can revisit this in November. i predict no LotV content @ Blizzcon 2014 and LOTS of MOBA content at Blizzcon 2014.
the team is working on the MOBA not on LotV.
now, just because i believe you are incorrect in this one fairly meaningless matter does not mean i'd extend that to a ridiculous degree by saying "you know nothing".
i'll leave the baffoonery to you.
Not of fan of Game of Thrones then? "baffoonery" lol
It's not out the the realm of possibility that LOTV will not be at Blizzcon, but even so, it will come. Going all doomsday about it is strange considering we've had a game release just one year ago plus the unprecedented Blizzard involvement and financial support through WSC.
If it were up to me i would overhaul SC2 in the next exp. and test the crap out of it for a 2016 release.
LOL, so now you're backing off of your prediction. my prediction still stands.
i like SC2's competitive multiplayer as is. maybe some very small refinements in balance can be made. but, over all its good.
the job Blizzard did with SC2 outside of the area of competitive multiplayer is just incredible. the campaign is great., the arcade is great, the "galaxy builder" is great. i could keep listing stuff and just saying "great" 50 times.
over all, Browder and Kim can really be proud of what they've done.
the RTS game type doesn't make the kind of money many other genres do and we're lucky to have game designers like Browder and Kim who love the genre like we do.
we're all pretty luck Starcraft is Morhaime's favourite game.
I don't make predictions, i give opinions.
Blizzard fucked up big, big time with SC2 on a number of levels that still hunt them today. One of the most important ones being the terrible Bnet that the game came out with. This alone acted as a great deterrent for the casuals and it took Blizz years to understand and somewhat rectify the problem, most likely to late. HOTS was also a missed opportunity to fix fundamental problems with the game and this again is seen in the numbers: people see there not being enough of an evolution and leave. LOTV is the last chance. I can go on and on about all the missed opportunities and mistakes made by Blizzard that lead to the game not being as popular as it could have been (the way they handled the Korean scene is another big mistake).
I'm glad you like the game so much, but there are many fans, pro players, ex pro players, map makers, team owners, casters, etc that are super frustrated by the lack of communication and action from Blizz in changing and improving key aspects of the game.
I think i've said all there is to say about it. If you keep repeating the same stuff over and over then we'll agree to disagree.
The Bnet chat interface (or lack thereof) was a huge blow to starcraft 2. I'm wondering how many of my old friends just never reconnected due to that.
There are many players who want blizzard to improve the game? Sure...however, there are also tons of people who want to make the game worse because the game they loved (Broodwar) was worse and they need this game to be like that. You know a game where racial balance is way worse than starcraft 2 ever has been and a game where there were almost no good maps made until after 90% of players had already left the game.
Broodwar was a great game for its time, but the worst thing that has happened to starcraft 2 is that people want to make it into Broodwar and that wouldn't be a good thing.
Broodwar was fun, the early esports were fun to compete in (PGL, i2e2, etc) but the game itself was not balanced and was overly tediouis. Protoss 15 wins, Terran 31 wins, Zerg 24 wins in major tournaments once the Korean scene got running...years of Terran dominance in a row...starcraft 2 has been better balanced.
And as far as acting like progamers are united on what needs to be changed about the game...I constantly hear them arguing about how the game should be changed, not just in details, but..."making two changes at once is bad" "Making this change before seeing if maps are the problem is bad" "I wish they would give us more time to adjust to the last change before changing something again"...and then you hear..."this is bad for the game, why haven't they changed it yet?" "Blizzard is taking too long" "Blizzard isn't doing enough"
The problem isn't Blizzard (if they change fast or slow they get criticized) its the community. We discussed this in depth on an old site of ours that was sold for a good $100 million by Mr. Thresh, but...the community whether its in an MMO (then we were talking EQ) or an RTS as in Broodwar tends to be overly biased towards their own situation and struggles to see the big picture. In starcraft 2 you have the most successful esports RTS game of all time...but people aren't happy. You have more competition today than you ever did for Broodwar (are you kidding, it was THE first massive internet game...before that we were on Kali so that we could play games like War2), you have expectations that this game will be chess when like every other computer game ever made it will not, and you have people that think that because it is smaller in korea (but bigger in the world overall) that it has failed.
I feel this has been said already, but it really does sound as if you're looking for WC3 minus the (relatively) weak macro. That or Nexus Wars.
And, what the rest of posters also said, talking about pros and cons. About strategic depth, I'd say you should at least try to get into it before debunking it completely (probably biased as I play Dota myself, but I'm sure most people here have explained already the depth behind drafting, composition, aciton plans through the game and the execution itself).
Now, I'd say the problem with RTS is: 1- Although they can be team based, which people love, there's usually more support for straight 1v1 ladder and multiplayer, which can be frustrating for some
2- Most of them focusing on a competitive and balanced design first, fun later. Yeah, I know that might sound weird, especially here in TL, but when you think about it, games designed as sports first tend to suffer from rigid design and a focus on removing and limiting good design for the sake of balance (as much as I've played alot of SC2, it is one of the prime examples I can think of, lots of good ideas that go wrong because balance comes first.
Personally, I think the best shot for RTS nowadays is a MMORTS, with a focus on short,rapid burst of actions and possibly some new twists. Yeah, MMORTS aren't new, but more of the same will probably not work. I'll be honest, I can't think of anything at the moment, but the potential is there. RTS being complicated is far from being the reason: both LoL and Dota are way more confusing than a generic RTS, the market isn't as dumbed down as some people think, they're just high on instant gratification.
On May 15 2014 04:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Dustin is the game design lead for SC2, and he is going where the money is. the expansion is taking so long its leading guys like u to make idle speculation.
Taking so long? One year has passed since the last one. We will hear about it at Blizzcon.
You know nothing, JimmyJ!
thanks for your big prediction. we can revisit this in November. i predict no LotV content @ Blizzcon 2014 and LOTS of MOBA content at Blizzcon 2014.
the team is working on the MOBA not on LotV.
now, just because i believe you are incorrect in this one fairly meaningless matter does not mean i'd extend that to a ridiculous degree by saying "you know nothing".
i'll leave the baffoonery to you.
Not of fan of Game of Thrones then? "baffoonery" lol
It's not out the the realm of possibility that LOTV will not be at Blizzcon, but even so, it will come. Going all doomsday about it is strange considering we've had a game release just one year ago plus the unprecedented Blizzard involvement and financial support through WSC.
If it were up to me i would overhaul SC2 in the next exp. and test the crap out of it for a 2016 release.
LOL, so now you're backing off of your prediction. my prediction still stands.
i like SC2's competitive multiplayer as is. maybe some very small refinements in balance can be made. but, over all its good.
the job Blizzard did with SC2 outside of the area of competitive multiplayer is just incredible. the campaign is great., the arcade is great, the "galaxy builder" is great. i could keep listing stuff and just saying "great" 50 times.
over all, Browder and Kim can really be proud of what they've done.
the RTS game type doesn't make the kind of money many other genres do and we're lucky to have game designers like Browder and Kim who love the genre like we do.
we're all pretty luck Starcraft is Morhaime's favourite game.
I don't make predictions, i give opinions.
Blizzard fucked up big, big time with SC2 on a number of levels that still hunt them today. One of the most important ones being the terrible Bnet that the game came out with. This alone acted as a great deterrent for the casuals and it took Blizz years to understand and somewhat rectify the problem, most likely to late. HOTS was also a missed opportunity to fix fundamental problems with the game and this again is seen in the numbers: people see there not being enough of an evolution and leave. LOTV is the last chance. I can go on and on about all the missed opportunities and mistakes made by Blizzard that lead to the game not being as popular as it could have been (the way they handled the Korean scene is another big mistake).
I'm glad you like the game so much, but there are many fans, pro players, ex pro players, map makers, team owners, casters, etc that are super frustrated by the lack of communication and action from Blizz in changing and improving key aspects of the game.
I think i've said all there is to say about it. If you keep repeating the same stuff over and over then we'll agree to disagree.
The Bnet chat interface (or lack thereof) was a huge blow to starcraft 2. I'm wondering how many of my old friends just never reconnected due to that.
There are many players who want blizzard to improve the game? Sure...however, there are also tons of people who want to make the game worse because the game they loved (Broodwar) was worse and they need this game to be like that. You know a game where racial balance is way worse than starcraft 2 ever has been and a game where there were almost no good maps made until after 90% of players had already left the game.
Broodwar was a great game for its time, but the worst thing that has happened to starcraft 2 is that people want to make it into Broodwar and that wouldn't be a good thing.
Broodwar was fun, the early esports were fun to compete in (PGL, i2e2, etc) but the game itself was not balanced and was overly tediouis. Protoss 15 wins, Terran 31 wins, Zerg 24 wins in major tournaments once the Korean scene got running...years of Terran dominance in a row...starcraft 2 has been better balanced.
And as far as acting like progamers are united on what needs to be changed about the game...I constantly hear them arguing about how the game should be changed, not just in details, but..."making two changes at once is bad" "Making this change before seeing if maps are the problem is bad" "I wish they would give us more time to adjust to the last change before changing something again"...and then you hear..."this is bad for the game, why haven't they changed it yet?" "Blizzard is taking too long" "Blizzard isn't doing enough"
The problem isn't Blizzard (if they change fast or slow they get criticized) its the community. We discussed this in depth on an old site of ours that was sold for a good $100 million by Mr. Thresh, but...the community whether its in an MMO (then we were talking EQ) or an RTS as in Broodwar tends to be overly biased towards their own situation and struggles to see the big picture. In starcraft 2 you have the most successful esports RTS game of all time...but people aren't happy. You have more competition today than you ever did for Broodwar (are you kidding, it was THE first massive internet game...before that we were on Kali so that we could play games like War2), you have expectations that this game will be chess when like every other computer game ever made it will not, and you have people that think that because it is smaller in korea (but bigger in the world overall) that it has failed.
I'm looking forward to Legacy of the Void.
Actually if Blizzard just worked on BW, the Koreans would've have switched earlier w/ BW mindset and thus be more united. It would have sparked new generation for "shiny graphics" and have all those great monetary system to capitalize on. LoL would probably never take off due to a revamp of BW that everybody loved. There wouldn't be battles in the community, everybody would have lived in harmony to spread the name StarCraft to the deepest portion of the planet.
Bad stuff: - Too complicated for casuals - Boring, repetitive phase of building stuff
This is idea, that the building phase must be boring and repetitive pisses me off. Cause it isn't true.
Blizzard has this inane idea, that everyone has the right to an expansion. And if someone plays on 1 base, you shouldn't be forced to counter with 1 base play, there is still some way to expand. I think scouting shouldn't be a choice, but a requirement, that is the heart of strategy games, knowing what your opponent is doing. But in SC2, you don't need to scout if you open with X expand.
This right has to led to where we are now, with long builds up with virtually no action. Blizzard might as well start everyone on 2 bases to save time. Worse, because certain units are countered easily in large economy play, unit compositions become standardized, further reducing variation in a RTS game. Take the 1-1-1 in TvP. That composition (Marine, Banshee, Tank) didn't work in big games, but was awesome on one base...
SC2 has been made into a game of mechanics, strategy is second as good mechanics easily overcomes strategy in SC2.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
Now with all that said, play my map for WC3, Coming of the Horde. It is everything you are looking for OP. And the idea does work.
This man ladies and gentlemen, gets it. Its mostly due to the maps being at fault, we went from having too small maps to now too large AND easy to defend naturals/3rds. We have no compromise.
On May 15 2014 02:35 Wombat_NI wrote: Agreed Bronze, although in fairness a lot of that homogenisation of gameplay into what we have now has been due to problematic builds and fan reaction to that.
1/1/1 was a bit ridiculous on a map like Xel'Naga Caverns for example, but the general concept that every race MUST be able to expand early, hell even in PvP it's been something they've been pushing and I feel it's taken away some of the strategic and stylistic variety.
What bothers me most, is the fact Blizzard could fix the problem instantly by just starting everyone on two bases and saving everyone time.
But they insist on wasting 5 minutes of everyone's time, so people can open with a fast expand off no units... I don't think anyone would really care if 6 pooling, 2 gating and 2 raxing weren't viable strategies anymore either. They offer no strategic depth, they are simply coin flipping. We just don't need shit like this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-strategy/449569-2vs2-lillekanin-god-build-100-winratio
And if you play the game causally for fun, they aren't fun strategies to execute or face, and they get old really fast.
You know I think Magpie posted a list of RTS released recently and 0 AD was among them. This was a project I had followed some time ago but ended up forgetting about it because nothing was being done.
On May 15 2014 13:36 Incognoto wrote: You know I think Magpie posted a list of RTS released recently and 0 AD was among them. This was a project I had followed some time ago but ended up forgetting about it because nothing was being done.
Well they've done a LOT of work since then, I think it's worth checking out again to see how things are.
I posted a wiki link of recent big release RTS games. It wasn't a total of all RTS games being released and did not count rereleases. The point being that I was pointing out that lots of RTS titles are out there, and more people are playing it today than played it years ago and the only real thing that would make it seem small is if you discount all the non-competitive, non-serious, non-successful RTS releases as not being "real" RTS games.
Bad stuff: - Too complicated for casuals - Boring, repetitive phase of building stuff
This is idea, that the building phase must be boring and repetitive pisses me off. Cause it isn't true.
Blizzard has this inane idea, that everyone has the right to an expansion. And if someone plays on 1 base, you shouldn't be forced to counter with 1 base play, there is still some way to expand. I think scouting shouldn't be a choice, but a requirement, that is the heart of strategy games, knowing what your opponent is doing. But in SC2, you don't need to scout if you open with X expand.
This right has to led to where we are now, with long builds up with virtually no action. Blizzard might as well start everyone on 2 bases to save time. Worse, because certain units are countered easily in large economy play, unit compositions become standardized, further reducing variation in a RTS game. Take the 1-1-1 in TvP. That composition (Marine, Banshee, Tank) didn't work in big games, but was awesome on one base...
SC2 has been made into a game of mechanics, strategy is second as good mechanics easily overcomes strategy in SC2.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
Now with all that said, play my map for WC3, Coming of the Horde. It is everything you are looking for OP. And the idea does work.
This man ladies and gentlemen, gets it. Its mostly due to the maps being at fault, we went from having too small maps to now too large AND easy to defend naturals/3rds. We have no compromise.
On May 15 2014 02:35 Wombat_NI wrote: Agreed Bronze, although in fairness a lot of that homogenisation of gameplay into what we have now has been due to problematic builds and fan reaction to that.
1/1/1 was a bit ridiculous on a map like Xel'Naga Caverns for example, but the general concept that every race MUST be able to expand early, hell even in PvP it's been something they've been pushing and I feel it's taken away some of the strategic and stylistic variety.
What bothers me most, is the fact Blizzard could fix the problem instantly by just starting everyone on two bases and saving everyone time.
But they insist on wasting 5 minutes of everyone's time, so people can open with a fast expand off no units... I don't think anyone would really care if 6 pooling, 2 gating and 2 raxing weren't viable strategies anymore either. They offer no strategic depth, they are simply coin flipping. We just don't need shit like this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-strategy/449569-2vs2-lillekanin-god-build-100-winratio
And if you play the game causally for fun, they aren't fun strategies to execute or face, and they get old really fast.
In fairness to Blizzard, their initial iteration of the game was of smaller maps allowing for 1-2 base play (3base if you wanted a long game) that focused on small unit engagements, a combination of timing attacks and constant aggression.
Players asked for easy expansions, massive maps, and no action for 15 minutes. And they got exactly what they requested for.
On May 15 2014 09:18 marigoldran wrote: One of the reasons I'm not playing the game as much is because on multi-player it's too damn stressful. Other friends feel the same way.
With the laddering system, Blizzard made it too competitive.
Good riddance. If you want to feel like a winner all the time? play an MMO. Not feel bad after a loss? play a team moba so you can blame others instead. The competitive head-to-head aspect is what makes Starcraft so great in an era of increasingly casual games for players who can't handle losing.
Guys in regarding to RTS games, I would also like to suggest the game Zero-K.
Its the most versatile RTS game that I have ever witnessed in my life. In terms of micro potential and game uniqueness, it definitely eclipsed even SC:BW.
Tell me what do you guys think about it.
And 0.A.D. looks GREAT too. I guess there are actually hope for RTS games after all.
I would say that 0.A.D. is worthy enough to be a spiritual successor to the AoE series and complex enough to be played at competitive level.
I would also like to say that Zero-K is likely worthy enough to be BW's spiritual successor and complex enough to be enjoyed for those highly micro-potential moment.
I will be checking out Zero-K. It reminds me a LOT of TA. Which is a game I really loved.
I've downloaded 0 AD this morning and played a skirmish vs the computer. The game is clearly in alpha but I'm already in love. It's definitely the spiritual sucessor of Aoe. I highly recommend downloading and giving it a shot. The graphics are great, the units feel a bit retarded sometimes but overall the game has a very good feel. If there's multiplayer (i gtg in less than an hour) I'm going to start playing 1v1 with friends. If there isn't I'm going to spam their forums until there is.
E: There is mutliplayer. Is anyone interested in doing 1v1 with me? brb going to make 0 AD thread.
Bad stuff: - Too complicated for casuals - Boring, repetitive phase of building stuff
This is idea, that the building phase must be boring and repetitive pisses me off. Cause it isn't true.
Blizzard has this inane idea, that everyone has the right to an expansion. And if someone plays on 1 base, you shouldn't be forced to counter with 1 base play, there is still some way to expand. I think scouting shouldn't be a choice, but a requirement, that is the heart of strategy games, knowing what your opponent is doing. But in SC2, you don't need to scout if you open with X expand.
This right has to led to where we are now, with long builds up with virtually no action. Blizzard might as well start everyone on 2 bases to save time. Worse, because certain units are countered easily in large economy play, unit compositions become standardized, further reducing variation in a RTS game. Take the 1-1-1 in TvP. That composition (Marine, Banshee, Tank) didn't work in big games, but was awesome on one base...
SC2 has been made into a game of mechanics, strategy is second as good mechanics easily overcomes strategy in SC2.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
Now with all that said, play my map for WC3, Coming of the Horde. It is everything you are looking for OP. And the idea does work.
This man ladies and gentlemen, gets it. Its mostly due to the maps being at fault, we went from having too small maps to now too large AND easy to defend naturals/3rds. We have no compromise.
On May 15 2014 02:35 Wombat_NI wrote: Agreed Bronze, although in fairness a lot of that homogenisation of gameplay into what we have now has been due to problematic builds and fan reaction to that.
1/1/1 was a bit ridiculous on a map like Xel'Naga Caverns for example, but the general concept that every race MUST be able to expand early, hell even in PvP it's been something they've been pushing and I feel it's taken away some of the strategic and stylistic variety.
What bothers me most, is the fact Blizzard could fix the problem instantly by just starting everyone on two bases and saving everyone time.
But they insist on wasting 5 minutes of everyone's time, so people can open with a fast expand off no units... I don't think anyone would really care if 6 pooling, 2 gating and 2 raxing weren't viable strategies anymore either. They offer no strategic depth, they are simply coin flipping. We just don't need shit like this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-strategy/449569-2vs2-lillekanin-god-build-100-winratio
And if you play the game causally for fun, they aren't fun strategies to execute or face, and they get old really fast.
In fairness to Blizzard, their initial iteration of the game was of smaller maps allowing for 1-2 base play (3base if you wanted a long game) that focused on small unit engagements, a combination of timing attacks and constant aggression.
Players asked for easy expansions, massive maps, and no action for 15 minutes. And they got exactly what they requested for.
In fairness to the original players getting marine-scv all-in'd every game was awful.
There are a few things a modern RTS needs to do to be as popular as the dotas and the LoL's.
1. figure out how to be free to play (best way would be the hats method) 2. figure out how to make team matches the standard game mode. As with sports, there is almost always more interest in team games than 1v1 games. 3. figure out how to have each match tell a compelling story.
Within a vacuum the games of sc2 that tell a compelling story within the game itself (forget the players and any outside drama) are few and far between. One can only take watching players max out armies and bash them together so many times before he tires of watching it.
Bad stuff: - Too complicated for casuals - Boring, repetitive phase of building stuff
This is idea, that the building phase must be boring and repetitive pisses me off. Cause it isn't true.
Blizzard has this inane idea, that everyone has the right to an expansion. And if someone plays on 1 base, you shouldn't be forced to counter with 1 base play, there is still some way to expand. I think scouting shouldn't be a choice, but a requirement, that is the heart of strategy games, knowing what your opponent is doing. But in SC2, you don't need to scout if you open with X expand.
This right has to led to where we are now, with long builds up with virtually no action. Blizzard might as well start everyone on 2 bases to save time. Worse, because certain units are countered easily in large economy play, unit compositions become standardized, further reducing variation in a RTS game. Take the 1-1-1 in TvP. That composition (Marine, Banshee, Tank) didn't work in big games, but was awesome on one base...
SC2 has been made into a game of mechanics, strategy is second as good mechanics easily overcomes strategy in SC2.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
Now with all that said, play my map for WC3, Coming of the Horde. It is everything you are looking for OP. And the idea does work.
This man ladies and gentlemen, gets it. Its mostly due to the maps being at fault, we went from having too small maps to now too large AND easy to defend naturals/3rds. We have no compromise.
On May 15 2014 02:35 Wombat_NI wrote: Agreed Bronze, although in fairness a lot of that homogenisation of gameplay into what we have now has been due to problematic builds and fan reaction to that.
1/1/1 was a bit ridiculous on a map like Xel'Naga Caverns for example, but the general concept that every race MUST be able to expand early, hell even in PvP it's been something they've been pushing and I feel it's taken away some of the strategic and stylistic variety.
What bothers me most, is the fact Blizzard could fix the problem instantly by just starting everyone on two bases and saving everyone time.
But they insist on wasting 5 minutes of everyone's time, so people can open with a fast expand off no units... I don't think anyone would really care if 6 pooling, 2 gating and 2 raxing weren't viable strategies anymore either. They offer no strategic depth, they are simply coin flipping. We just don't need shit like this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-strategy/449569-2vs2-lillekanin-god-build-100-winratio
And if you play the game causally for fun, they aren't fun strategies to execute or face, and they get old really fast.
In fairness to Blizzard, their initial iteration of the game was of smaller maps allowing for 1-2 base play (3base if you wanted a long game) that focused on small unit engagements, a combination of timing attacks and constant aggression.
Players asked for easy expansions, massive maps, and no action for 15 minutes. And they got exactly what they requested for.
In fairness to the original players getting marine-scv all-in'd every game was awful.
There are a few things a modern RTS needs to do to be as popular as the dotas and the LoL's.
1. figure out how to be free to play (best way would be the hats method) 2. figure out how to make team matches the standard game mode. As with sports, there is almost always more interest in team games than 1v1 games. 3. figure out how to have each match tell a compelling story.
Within a vacuum the games of sc2 that tell a compelling story within the game itself (forget the players and any outside drama) are few and far between. One can only take watching players max out armies and bash them together so many times before he tires of watching it.
And there we have the problem. Smaller maps just means that trying to tech or expand is almost suicidal, bigger maps means no one can attack for 10 mins unless you're doing an all in. I think a lot of this has to do with protoss, but also how useless zerg is on one base. The whole "right to an expansion" thing is a valid point, the issue being that one race is really built around the assumption of a very early expansion.
If a game from 1998 could offer a more dynamic early game and still provide epic 8 base late game battles, it seems perverse that Sc2 would not be able to.
On May 14 2014 05:21 Cheren wrote: 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.
0 AD has been in development for a looooooong time. I remember checking it out in 2008, and it seems that development started way before that. It shows a lot of promise and has had a decent amount of progress, but it still has a long ways to go. I'm still excited for it, but I stopped holding my breath for it a long time ago.
A lot of people bring up Dota2 as an example of a game done right, but i think a lot of that has to do with Valve's horizontal corporate structure and how it allows employees to develop a lot of features and polish for projects that they're interested in, though sometimes at the detriment of other projects. Blizzard and even Riot seem slower in compariaon.
EPT
