On May 14 2014 05:08 -HuShang- wrote: 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?
My 3 5 and 7 year old are happy to sit and watch GSL with me any time. They may not understand the intricacies of what is going on but they still love it, people generally assume that it is impossible for anyone but the most elite to watch it and enjoy it, and that anyone who doesn't fully understand cannot enjoy it.
SC2 just needs to allow players to be on the offensive more. Too much posturing and not being able to do anything. And have the battles last longer, so players can differentiate their skill there more.
I think you should take a look at Planetary Annihilation. It's still in beta but man, playing on planets (understand spherical maps without borders or middle) raises the strategic depth over the roof. http://www.planetaryannihilation.com
I disagree here. While the genre isn't in its heyday anymore, there are plenty of RTS games in development. To name a few off the top of my head:
Grey Goo, Planetary Annihilation, Meridian, Homeworld: Shipbreakers, Etherium, Company of Heroes 2 expansions.
The difference is that its no longer a dominant genre. Mobas will probably go into decline at some stage too.
Also, don't be hating on Mobas for their perceived 'lack of depth'. It isn't the case. They offer a huge amount of depth in areas not parallel to those found in sc2, e.g. coordination between team-members, playing support roles, etc. Finally, your idea for a game kinda seems like it might suffer from being a bastard child rather than a thought-out, designed concept. You can't just take the best bits of two different, perhaps related things and assume they'll work well together. I love pepperoni on pizza but I wouldn't put it on ice cream. (I dunno, maybe I should... anyone?)
Claiming that MOBAs lack strategic depth is a typical sign of someone who hasn't spent enough time learning about the game. LoL may have a lower barrier of entry in terms of mechanics and what it takes to learn the game somewhat properly, but the fact that there are over a hundred champions (five on each team, combined almost freely) that all interact with each other, the map, the dozens of items available, and the opposing team differently means that there are endless areas to master, just like in SC2. It is true that on average, LoL may be less mechanically intense than for example SC2, but this is not always the case:
This clip is pretty much the peak of mechanical skill, displayed by arguably the best mid player in the world on arguably the best team in the world. No one can consistently match what Faker pulls of with Zed and a variety of other champions, just as no one can match what SKT as a team pulls off in every match in which they give their everything. That should tell you that LoL or Dota (which has a much higher barrier of entry than LoL does due to the somewhat strange mechanics carried over from Dota 1) are not as simple as some people make them out to be.
As for the instant action factor you speak of, there are similar periods of downtime in both LoL and particularly Dota, where very little except farming, warding and de-warding happens. Entire games can work out like that, just as entire games can be macro snoozefests in SC2. MOBA does not necessarily mean high-octane action immediately any more than RTS does.
I like my RTS-games fine they way they are, to be honest. Any kind of attempted RTS/MOBA-hybrid would, for me, be to make a less interesting game to reach a larger audience.
RTS games are not about to die due to mobas. They problem is that they always had a single-player focus. And publishers can't justify putting AAA production values on a PC-only genre anymore. That the games themselves degenerated to action-games-played-with-mouse doesn't help the matters either.
Okay guys, let's not skin the man alive. Moba-games have comparably a lack of strategic depth. In that Akke article(or question-session), I am pretty sure he stated that team synergy is the important thing, and team synergi = strategy?
On May 14 2014 05:51 Muffloe wrote: Okay guys, let's not skin the man alive. Moba-games have comparably a lack of strategic depth. In that Akke article(or question-session), I am pretty sure he stated that team synergy is the important thing, and team synergi = strategy?
Team synergy is a layer of depth that has to be accounted for within the execution of any given strategy, yes.
I played LoL for about two years, DOTA1 for a very long time, and a little bit of DOTA2. I just can't understand the arguments that MOBA's mechanical skill and strategic depth compare to an RTS (specifically SC/SC2). While MOBAs are fun for a short period of time, they are definitely easier in my opinion. However I do believe they have their place, and I'm glad they're bringing more people into the eSports scene.
On the other hand I don't think mixing the two would create something good.. People play RTS because they like RTS. People play MOBAs because they like MOBAs.
Blizzard has the habit if taking away a big chunk of room when they enter a genre. Thats probably the biggest reason people avoid creating classic rts games. Because you need to deliver something damn good to not die right away, like many did when people thought it was the time to lure people away from Warcraft 3. Thats why the MMO scene turned into f2p grab all the money you can get before people go back to WoW. And the production cost has gotten to high to risk dieing right away, atleast in genres that don't have a huge player base. With the steam going down the drain there isn't even the chance for small indie devs to get enough recognition anymore.
Either way the op almost perfectly described Dawn of War 2 Imo. Would have gotten bigger if the creators wouldn't have messed up the expansion pack.
On May 14 2014 05:46 Zealously wrote: Claiming that MOBAs lack strategic depth is a typical sign of someone who hasn't spent enough time learning about the game. LoL may have a lower barrier of entry in terms of mechanics and what it takes to learn the game somewhat properly, but the fact that there are over a hundred champions (five on each team, combined almost freely) that all interact with each other, the map, the dozens of items available, and the opposing team differently means that there are endless areas to master, just like in SC2. It is true that on average, LoL may be less mechanically intense than for example SC2, but this is not always the case:
This clip is pretty much the peak of mechanical skill, displayed by arguably the best mid player in the world on arguably the best team in the world. No one can consistently match what Faker pulls of with Zed and a variety of other champions, just as no one can match what SKT as a team pulls off in every match in which they give their everything. That should tell you that LoL or Dota (which has a much higher barrier of entry than LoL does due to the somewhat strange mechanics carried over from Dota 1) are not as simple as some people make them out to be.
As for the instant action factor you speak of, there are similar periods of downtime in both LoL and particularly Dota, where very little except farming, warding and de-warding happens. Entire games can work out like that, just as entire games can be macro snoozefests in SC2. MOBA does not necessarily mean high-octane action immediately any more than RTS does.
I agree that a lot of people undervalue the strategy in mobas (here: lol), but let's be honest for a moment. In League there are CLEARLY champs that just don't work in the highest lvl of play. This combined with the the "fact" that at least in lol the champions are kinda "more of the same but a little bit different" it really isn't that diverse at all.
Also i think his point about action still stands, even when you have games that are 24/7 farm, the chance that something happens is there from minute 1 really. The suspense is always there (kinda like in real sports) I actualyl think this is one of the most important parts about the success of mobas, if rts games can emulate that in some way or another, i think they would benefit greatly.
I think rts games need to focus more on team play so you can play and be social at the same time 2v2 3v3 2v2v2v2 etc. As to gameplay I think starcraft 2 is a little to fast paced and unforgiving for your average gamer. I think a slower game ( slower= longer fights, less dmg) with more time to react and more comeback potential(not necessarily less multitasking) would appeal more to the masses.
On May 14 2014 06:04 Gullis wrote: I think rts games need to focus more on team play so you can play and be social at the same time 2v2 3v3 2v2v2v2 etc. As to gameplay I think starcraft 2 is a little to fast paced and unforgiving for your average gamer. I think a slower game ( slower= longer fights, less dmg) with more time to react and more comeback potential(not necessarily less multitasking) would appeal more to the masses.
I don't know, the distinct lack of multitasking is what seems to make MOBAs so easy to get into and watch. While multitask is impressive it's really hard to convey to an audience.
Then again, content producers and casters could do a better job at trying to convey what makes Starcraft impressive. Things like player POV and screen in screens to show how many things the players are handling at the same time, keyboard shots to show their hand movements. I don't feel like anyone is trying to push the boundaries on that front.
On May 14 2014 05:51 Muffloe wrote: Okay guys, let's not skin the man alive. Moba-games have comparably a lack of strategic depth. In that Akke article(or question-session), I am pretty sure he stated that team synergy is the important thing, and team synergi = strategy?
Team synergy is a layer of depth that has to be accounted for within the execution of any given strategy, yes.
The same can be said about SC2, but 2v2, 3v3 and etc. are not played at the highest level. And I blame blizzard for it. Also I wouldn't say team synergy = strategy. If you had 3-4 players controlling 5 heroes, the strategic depth wouldn't really have changed, but the game would definitely be harder to play and thereby effecting some strategies used, but not depth.
I think the other possible way to look at is that Starcraft and Warcraft series have been so successful that they have more or less weeded out other RTS games.
Well yeah, I have to admit, I don't have much experience with MOBAs, so maybe I'm judging them wrong. I remember playing Demigod when it came out and the action in that game literally blew me away. I immediately thought: How awesome would that be with units from StarCraft? After some time I got bored with it, mainly because slaying minions that come back all the time isn't as much fun as expected. The same thing happened later with LoL, so I didn't even care to learn more about heroes and items.
It's possible that I'm missing out on the possible strategies in MOBAs. I guess it's just a very different experience for a StarCraft player that is used to control dozens of units at a time.
I completely disagree that it's the end of the RTS era. Because i want to differentiate something.
It's the end of the era of really good RTS developers/designers.
To be honest, if a company, even an existing one like riot or blizzard came out with a new RTS, it could be capable of attracting a great audience if it's designed well. Right now though, and strictly speaking blizzard RTS aka SC2 considering it's really the only RTS on the market with mass exposure...the designer's egos are getting a bit in the way of game balance and game design that a lot of the community and customer base wants.
LOTV will probably be the last RTS with the possibilities of a decent development team, but at the rate that HOTS seems to have deteriorated, we really have to hope that the developers starting losing ego and listening to the community about obvious design issues such as swarmhosts and all-ins or things that are too easy like nexus cannon or even things like high ground advantage that were never implemented but shown to be possible by mods such as Starbow.
So yeh, LOTV is pretty much the last hope for the RTS genre. Personally, i think there will be a nice spike in interest and viewership with LOTV like there is with every new expansion, but it will be really difficult to keep that hype and grow a viewer base from it if blizzard continues to not listen and interact with the community more when it comes to balance patches and design issues that are very apparent to everyone that watches the game.
EPT
