EPTWC3>>>>>SC2
The future of RTS games - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. | ||
|
Dingodile
4135 Posts
WC3>>>>>SC2 | ||
|
DeadByDawn
United Kingdom476 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
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.[...] Or in other words: MOBA minus minions, plus warpable and controllable units, plus steady economy. That's such a stark departure from the RTS form that it's clear you wish to create a new genre that draws upon lovers of RTS games and some MOBAs. It's now a way for the future of RTS games, it's a third path towards creating a new genre and a new future for it. I absolutely hated and deplored the combination of heroes and RTS soldiers that came together in WC3. It's not quite the army that matters, it's how you grow and develop your hero on "creep camps" and fights that contributes to well over 50% of successes and losses. Is there still room for a game capturing fun elements from playing the battlefield commander and base builder with an omniscient view of his troops? Hell yes. Will other games cater better to the casual gamer? Hell yes. Isn't this the whole point of Blizzard's entry into the DOTA field? Dare I utter the blasphemous words ... that eSports elements are fun but not the foundation of a great game? Don't covet thy neighbor's prize pool, keep playing games that are fun to play and playing in tournaments that might one day have meager rewards for first place. Maybe the next great RTS is free to play with hats(TM), I don't even know what innovations are on the horizon, but this hybrid you suggest is not a solution to RTS its an XYZ (something else entirely). | ||
|
TheoMikkelsen
Denmark196 Posts
Maybe you could just give gold bases at every base (literally, why not try it.) and see what happens. It should speed up games by 30-40% (given the exponential growth of gold bases and the fact that each goldbase will have 8 patches instead of 6) Also, gold bases means that early-game inactive workers hurt you a lot more = proxy gates, proxy rax etc will be less effective = a better game. Theoretically any player should be able to get 3 bases given tech paths, unit production ratios and gas incomes stay the same, meaning that making allins becomes less effective and thus reduces the amount of critical mistakes that causes better players to lose games they otherwise prove more skillful at. To compensate, the more mineral income allows players to quickly, perhaps even at 8-10 minutes, saturate 3 bases and thus still be able to do 3 base timings etc. which now means that you have much more space to work with and more stuff, and I am sure the better macro-capable players (such as the BW koreans) will flourish from a gamedesign like this. | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
These are the biggest things MOBAs have far and above current RTS. I get bored after 100 ladder games in SC2 after I've hit master 4 seasons in a row and have nothing left to do in the game? I quit I get Bored after 100 Solo Q games in League and hit Gold this season? Oh try one of 50 new champs I haven't played yet that have completely different playstyles. Also 5 different roles that play much differently from each other keeps it fresh and exciting. SC2 has gotten stagnant, very very stagnant. Most of the people who watch don't even play the game anymore. | ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
| ||
|
lamprey1
Canada919 Posts
On May 14 2014 05:01 urboss wrote: 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: 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? nothing can be done. its inherit in what an RTS is. every flavour of RTS from SC to C&C to CoH has a small hard core community supporting it. casuals will never get into it. nice try in your thread. Blizzard's Team1 which has worked on RTS games since 1994 was switched to a MOBA. So even Blizzard is gradually backing away from the genre. in the recent investor's call Blizzard mentioned every active game they have except Starcraft  Not 1 word. Relative to what Blizzard expects from its titles .. the RTS genre is falling into irrelevancy. small indy studios make mash together something fun.. liek this upcoming game "Grey Goo". we'lll probably never see another "AAA" level RTS game on the scale of SC2 again. so the only thing we can do is enjoy SC2. even though the RTS market is declining fast i'm still having fun with SC2. when its over.. i'll just do something else. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20299 Posts
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. Halo Wars.. Er, that star wars game too. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
| ||
|
lamprey1
Canada919 Posts
On May 14 2014 06:35 eviltomahawk wrote: The studio doing Grey Goo is hardly a small indie studio afaik. Petroglyph has already done some recognizable work in Star Wars Empire at War, Universe at War, and the dead End of Nations. it'll hardly be anything like SC2. we'll be lucky if its even on the scale of C&C3:Tiberium Wars. Petroglyphs record of execution in the RTS genre is weak. They come up with some great ideas and concepts. Let's not count any chickens before any eggs hatch. The game is not even in beta yet... and they have not exactly blown the doors off the "promotional budget" for this game thus far. so ease up there cowboy. | ||
|
HighdraL1sk
United States140 Posts
 jk. But yea I personally like the macro-management and mechanical skill and different build orders that starcraft allows. You can't get rid of base building | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
MOBAs are coming out left and right, and the market for that genre is overflowed. No need to talk about MMOs, or even FPS. RTS games however... They've died out, and yet, there is great potential. Let us hypothesize. Imagine WC3 was never released. Blizzard went straight on to SC2, DotA was still developed somehow, and we are in the exact same state and time we are now, only WC3 never existed. We have these overflowing MOBAs with tons of heroes, a special unit people are now very used to, a different type of strategy than SC2 (there is no lack of strategic depth in MOBAs, sorry), and the spirit of team battles. Now, let us say that Blizzard just announced and released WC3. We'll ignore all the paradoxes about why Blizzard would release a RTS that would compete against its own and all. I strongly believe that in such a scenario, WC3 would be a smashing success. It would obliterate SC2 without a doubt. Why? It's the perfect cross between SC2 (macro, maps, strategy and timing) and MOBAs (heroes, actions, micro-intensive fights). WC3 met its fair share of success, but it suffered from bad luck as it was released at an awkward time. It introduced the concept of heroes, so because it was new, people thought it was complicated. Now we have DotA 2 with like 100 heroes, who are much more complex than what WC3 gave us. WC3 also did not benefit from the technology of streaming (oh, the good old web radio days with WTV), which I'm sure would have helped it be even more successful. Even ten years after its release, WC3 still has tournaments going on (albeit few of them), and is beating quite strong in China. Obviously I'm biased, as I truly believe WC3 to be the greatest game ever made. It was simply amazing. Sadly, I don't see Blizzard ever releasing WC4. For that to be, they would need to wrap up WoW first, and by then, it's likely that the storyline of the Warcraft universe would simply be over. It doesn't mean that they can't start another franchise and give us some of the greatness they gave us with WC3 though. Them or another company. MOBAs and RTS aren't so different, and I too believe that a cross between the two would be very successful. Something that doesn't outright copy WC3, but greatly learns from it, and adds concepts and features from more recent games to make a RTS that focuses heavily on action and micro while toning down the macro element without suppressing it entirely. Something that puts an emphasis on timing, battles, map interaction and heroes. I'm sure that eventually, a game developer out there will see that opportunity and seize it. At least, I dearly hope so. We shall call it WC3: Greatness Reborn. :-) | ||
|
aRyuujin
United States5049 Posts
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. easier starcraft sounds a lot like sc2. I think that one of the things that draws people to RTS is the difficulty and the skill required to play, which is why even the "easy" starcraft game (sc2) is still incredibly hard | ||
|
gillon
Sweden1578 Posts
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 Sounds bad, man. Would not play. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On May 14 2014 05:57 FeyFey wrote: 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. And if hadn't had Starcraft 2 to contend with. However, DoW 2's campaign was better than Starcraft 2's, in my opinion. The latter felt like one very long tutorial: each mission you got a new unit, which was usually the only unit you would need to finish the mission. DoW2 gave the player a ton of freedom in how to tackle things from the very beginning. One thing to keep in mind as well is that RTS has always been a niche genre. My favourites have been and probably always will be Ensemble Studios' Age of Empires series. ES was the only RTS studio that could semi-effortlessly match blizzard in terms of quality and production values. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25585 Posts
Are you an accountant at heart, why not put your skills to work in sorting out supply chains for your faction and deploying forces? A micro fiend? Well you get deployed in charge of elite squadrons for crucial small-scale missions etc. Would be a motherfucker to do, but would be so sick let's be honest | ||
|
Nerchio
Poland2633 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25585 Posts
 | ||
|
NapkinBox
United States314 Posts
On May 14 2014 06:48 Wombat_NI wrote: The future of RTS is some kind of MMMORTS, with you joining thousands of other wannabe generals in waging war in some large-scale sector-wide conflict, ideally in space. Are you an accountant at heart, why not put your skills to work in sorting out supply chains for your faction and deploying forces? A micro fiend? Well you get deployed in charge of elite squadrons for crucial small-scale missions etc. Would be a motherfucker to do, but would be so sick let's be honest Isn't that what Dreamlords was all about? But, I'm pretty sure that game shut down years ago. And while we're talking about the strategical team depth that mobas have, let's not forget that Dota also puts a lot of emphasis on individual play as well. | ||
|
ionONE
Germany605 Posts
i believe the main problem is bnet 0.2 there is no reason to keep me login these days, valve and riot show what can be done in 2014^^ - bnet customization etctetc - no advertisement of "free to play" you have 40k on stream ... show a commercial ... give me stuff if i get new people into the game - blizzards ways to (not) communicate with us | ||
| ||
