|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
On May 18 2014 00:36 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2014 00:32 packrat386 wrote:
This discussion has gotten incredibly off topic if you think that you need to be GM in order to contribute. Being gm isn't a guarantee that you will be able to contribute, but it would ensure posters to have a slight clue.
I don't understand how being GM is relevant in discussion about RTS as a genre and its relationship both with its developers and its consumers.
If we were having a discussion on the proper micro techniques of a 3prong drop while defending a specific timing--sure, get the GMs in here. But when we're talking about why no one buys RTS games like the used to--how the fuck does being GM mean you know how to sell $60 products to a consumer base?
|
On May 17 2014 15:48 [O]ops wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2014 14:30 decemberscalm wrote:On May 17 2014 14:14 Roswell wrote:On May 17 2014 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2014 06:26 LongShot27 wrote:On May 14 2014 05:09 Garrl wrote:- Lack of strategic depth
pretty... sweeping statement you have there. You really think mobas have a lack of strategic depth? Item based Moba's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough gold to get enough items to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened Expansion based RTS's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough resources to get enough units to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened I believe resources are symmetrical so sorry that doesnt work. The problem with Mobas is that while there are 5000 hero combinations, there's only so many "right" choices you can choose. There really not that amount of depth, its you do A or you do B in any ingame fight or lane position battle. SC has an infinite amount of options and bluffs due to the fact that there are no tug of war lanes, resources, buildings, expansions, macro. Mobas have micro and that's it. It be like playing standard draw poker. No bets no noffing. You trade the cards to get the best possible chance of a better hand... Thats all. Mobas never have been real time strategy more than a fighting game is. I'm convinced this guys just trolling now. He's right , mobas have very little strategy other than knowing when,where and how to acquire farm I dont really feel the stategy you seem to implying. The game makes up for what it lacks in strategy with tactics though. Edit: before you tell me to play the game I'm 5.2k rated in DotA
MOBAs have strategic breadth but not depth. Most of the 'complexity' is superficial; a by-product of having a 100+ hero roster. You could, for example, expand the chessboard to 10x10, include new pieces such as the archer, trebuchet, cavalier etc. (just some made up names off the top of my head) with unique movement patterns, and claim that chess would have more variations. And you would be right!
So why isn't it done? That's really the question, isn't it?
On the other hand BW (and to a lesser extent sc2) is a true sandbox game. You have complete control over everything. You decide how your economy is going to work. You decide what and how many units to make. There's not a lot of actual variety in your arsenal, but the fact that you get to assemble armies from the ground up and move them about as you please grants you limitless power over the battlefield. This gives you inherent depth. Of course, this is dependent on there being no one 'best strategy', which is obviously something that the sc2 designers failed at. If the game was designed correctly and balanced with strategic variety in mind instead of racial statistics, then you'd have a game with extraordinary replayability.
At the end of the day, in a MOBA, you're just one guy on a big map with lots of stuff you can't do jack shit about. That's the bottom line.
|
On May 18 2014 01:53 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2014 15:48 [O]ops wrote:On May 17 2014 14:30 decemberscalm wrote:On May 17 2014 14:14 Roswell wrote:On May 17 2014 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2014 06:26 LongShot27 wrote:On May 14 2014 05:09 Garrl wrote:- Lack of strategic depth
pretty... sweeping statement you have there. You really think mobas have a lack of strategic depth? Item based Moba's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough gold to get enough items to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened Expansion based RTS's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough resources to get enough units to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened I believe resources are symmetrical so sorry that doesnt work. The problem with Mobas is that while there are 5000 hero combinations, there's only so many "right" choices you can choose. There really not that amount of depth, its you do A or you do B in any ingame fight or lane position battle. SC has an infinite amount of options and bluffs due to the fact that there are no tug of war lanes, resources, buildings, expansions, macro. Mobas have micro and that's it. It be like playing standard draw poker. No bets no noffing. You trade the cards to get the best possible chance of a better hand... Thats all. Mobas never have been real time strategy more than a fighting game is. I'm convinced this guys just trolling now. He's right , mobas have very little strategy other than knowing when,where and how to acquire farm I dont really feel the stategy you seem to implying. The game makes up for what it lacks in strategy with tactics though. Edit: before you tell me to play the game I'm 5.2k rated in DotA MOBAs have strategic breadth but not depth. Most of the 'complexity' is superficial; a by-product of having a 100+ hero roster. You could, for example, expand the chessboard to 10x10, include new pieces such as the archer, trebuchet, cavalier etc. (just some made up names off the top of my head) with unique movement patterns, and claim that chess would have more variations. And you would be right! So why isn't it done? That's really the question, isn't it? On the other hand BW (and to a lesser extent sc2) is a true sandbox game. You have complete control over everything. You decide how your economy is going to work. You decide what and how many units to make. There's not a lot of actual variety in your arsenal, but the fact that you get to assemble armies from the ground up and move them about as you please grants you limitless power over the battlefield. This gives you inherent depth. Of course, this is dependent on there being no one 'best strategy', which is obviously something that the sc2 designers failed at. If the game was designed correctly and balanced with strategic variety in mind instead of racial statistics, then you'd have a game with extraordinary replayability. At the end of the day, in a MOBA, you're just one guy on a big map with lots of stuff you can't do jack shit about. That's the bottom line.
For the sake of all that is holy, please stop spreading nonsense.
|
So what is the overall conclusion of this threat?
How does the future of RTS look like?
|
On May 18 2014 02:02 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2014 01:53 shadymmj wrote:On May 17 2014 15:48 [O]ops wrote:On May 17 2014 14:30 decemberscalm wrote:On May 17 2014 14:14 Roswell wrote:On May 17 2014 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2014 06:26 LongShot27 wrote:On May 14 2014 05:09 Garrl wrote:- Lack of strategic depth
pretty... sweeping statement you have there. You really think mobas have a lack of strategic depth? Item based Moba's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough gold to get enough items to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened Expansion based RTS's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough resources to get enough units to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened I believe resources are symmetrical so sorry that doesnt work. The problem with Mobas is that while there are 5000 hero combinations, there's only so many "right" choices you can choose. There really not that amount of depth, its you do A or you do B in any ingame fight or lane position battle. SC has an infinite amount of options and bluffs due to the fact that there are no tug of war lanes, resources, buildings, expansions, macro. Mobas have micro and that's it. It be like playing standard draw poker. No bets no noffing. You trade the cards to get the best possible chance of a better hand... Thats all. Mobas never have been real time strategy more than a fighting game is. I'm convinced this guys just trolling now. He's right , mobas have very little strategy other than knowing when,where and how to acquire farm I dont really feel the stategy you seem to implying. The game makes up for what it lacks in strategy with tactics though. Edit: before you tell me to play the game I'm 5.2k rated in DotA MOBAs have strategic breadth but not depth. Most of the 'complexity' is superficial; a by-product of having a 100+ hero roster. You could, for example, expand the chessboard to 10x10, include new pieces such as the archer, trebuchet, cavalier etc. (just some made up names off the top of my head) with unique movement patterns, and claim that chess would have more variations. And you would be right! So why isn't it done? That's really the question, isn't it? On the other hand BW (and to a lesser extent sc2) is a true sandbox game. You have complete control over everything. You decide how your economy is going to work. You decide what and how many units to make. There's not a lot of actual variety in your arsenal, but the fact that you get to assemble armies from the ground up and move them about as you please grants you limitless power over the battlefield. This gives you inherent depth. Of course, this is dependent on there being no one 'best strategy', which is obviously something that the sc2 designers failed at. If the game was designed correctly and balanced with strategic variety in mind instead of racial statistics, then you'd have a game with extraordinary replayability. At the end of the day, in a MOBA, you're just one guy on a big map with lots of stuff you can't do jack shit about. That's the bottom line. For the sake of all that is holy, please stop spreading nonsense.
"i can't find a suitable reply so ill just call it nonsense wah wah i cant hear you"
|
one misconception that i see seeping into this thread is this
"Dota2 is an amazing financial success and redefining teh gaming world"
the brutal cold hard fact is that Dota2 made $80 million last year, not $800 million.
in a world of billion dollar franchises Dota2 has so far been "meh" when it comes to ROI.
Dota2 looks like its growing but it is no where near to making the 1 billion + per year that WoW and other titles do.
Dota2 is not a failure, but its not like Valve is hiring 2,000 more people to support it either.
|
On May 18 2014 02:29 lamprey1 wrote:
one misconception that i see seeping into this thread is this
"Dota2 is an amazing financial success and redefining teh gaming world"
the brutal cold hard fact is that Dota2 made $80 million last year, not $800 million.
in a world of billion dollar franchises Dota2 has so far been "meh" when it comes to ROI.
Dota2 looks like its growing but it is no where near to making the 1 billion + per year that WoW and other titles do.
Dota2 is not a failure, but its not like Valve is hiring 2,000 more people to support it either.
Chinese Dota store wasn't open last year.
|
Are you trying to say that MOBAs are not successful?
Dota2 might not be doing so great, but LoL is:
LoL made $624 Million revenue last year.
|
On May 18 2014 02:39 BungaBunga wrote:
Are you trying to say that MOBAs are not successful?
Dota2 might not be doing so great, but LoL is:
LoL made $624 Million revenue last year.
the chart is listed a few posts up.
i'll just repost it here.
http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/20/10-online-pc-games-that-made-more-than-100m-in-microtransaction-sales-last-year/
On May 18 2014 01:53 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2014 15:48 [O]ops wrote:On May 17 2014 14:30 decemberscalm wrote:On May 17 2014 14:14 Roswell wrote:On May 17 2014 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2014 06:26 LongShot27 wrote:On May 14 2014 05:09 Garrl wrote:- Lack of strategic depth
pretty... sweeping statement you have there. You really think mobas have a lack of strategic depth? Item based Moba's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough gold to get enough items to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened Expansion based RTS's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough resources to get enough units to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened I believe resources are symmetrical so sorry that doesnt work. The problem with Mobas is that while there are 5000 hero combinations, there's only so many "right" choices you can choose. There really not that amount of depth, its you do A or you do B in any ingame fight or lane position battle. SC has an infinite amount of options and bluffs due to the fact that there are no tug of war lanes, resources, buildings, expansions, macro. Mobas have micro and that's it. It be like playing standard draw poker. No bets no noffing. You trade the cards to get the best possible chance of a better hand... Thats all. Mobas never have been real time strategy more than a fighting game is. I'm convinced this guys just trolling now. He's right , mobas have very little strategy other than knowing when,where and how to acquire farm I dont really feel the stategy you seem to implying. The game makes up for what it lacks in strategy with tactics though. Edit: before you tell me to play the game I'm 5.2k rated in DotA MOBAs have strategic breadth but not depth. Most of the 'complexity' is superficial; a by-product of having a 100+ hero roster. You could, for example, expand the chessboard to 10x10, include new pieces such as the archer, trebuchet, cavalier etc. (just some made up names off the top of my head) with unique movement patterns, and claim that chess would have more variations. And you would be right! So why isn't it done? That's really the question, isn't it?
that fuckin' queen is OP ... that bitch cost me the game against Garry Kasparov! Nerf that bitch!
|
On May 18 2014 01:53 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2014 15:48 [O]ops wrote:On May 17 2014 14:30 decemberscalm wrote:On May 17 2014 14:14 Roswell wrote:On May 17 2014 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 17 2014 06:26 LongShot27 wrote:On May 14 2014 05:09 Garrl wrote:- Lack of strategic depth
pretty... sweeping statement you have there. You really think mobas have a lack of strategic depth? Item based Moba's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough gold to get enough items to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened Expansion based RTS's do lack strategic depth, its becomes a race of "Who can get the enough resources to get enough units to do more damage faster" They weren't designed that way intentionally but thats what happened I believe resources are symmetrical so sorry that doesnt work. The problem with Mobas is that while there are 5000 hero combinations, there's only so many "right" choices you can choose. There really not that amount of depth, its you do A or you do B in any ingame fight or lane position battle. SC has an infinite amount of options and bluffs due to the fact that there are no tug of war lanes, resources, buildings, expansions, macro. Mobas have micro and that's it. It be like playing standard draw poker. No bets no noffing. You trade the cards to get the best possible chance of a better hand... Thats all. Mobas never have been real time strategy more than a fighting game is. I'm convinced this guys just trolling now. He's right , mobas have very little strategy other than knowing when,where and how to acquire farm I dont really feel the stategy you seem to implying. The game makes up for what it lacks in strategy with tactics though. Edit: before you tell me to play the game I'm 5.2k rated in DotA MOBAs have strategic breadth but not depth. Most of the 'complexity' is superficial; a by-product of having a 100+ hero roster. You could, for example, expand the chessboard to 10x10, include new pieces such as the archer, trebuchet, cavalier etc. (just some made up names off the top of my head) with unique movement patterns, and claim that chess would have more variations. And you would be right! So why isn't it done? That's really the question, isn't it? On the other hand BW (and to a lesser extent sc2) is a true sandbox game. You have complete control over everything. You decide how your economy is going to work. You decide what and how many units to make. There's not a lot of actual variety in your arsenal, but the fact that you get to assemble armies from the ground up and move them about as you please grants you limitless power over the battlefield. This gives you inherent depth. Of course, this is dependent on there being no one 'best strategy', which is obviously something that the sc2 designers failed at. If the game was designed correctly and balanced with strategic variety in mind instead of racial statistics, then you'd have a game with extraordinary replayability. At the end of the day, in a MOBA, you're just one guy on a big map with lots of stuff you can't do jack shit about. That's the bottom line.
"A true sandbox game" what a load of shit, a sandbox game is a game with much more freedom and little competitiveness. Saying that in a MOBA you are just a guy on a map with stuff you cant do jack shit about is just being ignorant. Both genre's have mechanics and limitations which force you to interact with the map, other players and collect resources. As a single player in a team in a pub, yeah you only have 1/5 the control of what your team does, but in any form of coordinated play your team has all the tools to control how the resources are acquired and how you use them to defeat your opponents who are trying to do the same, just like in an RTS.
|
On May 18 2014 00:31 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2014 00:12 ZodaSoda wrote:On May 17 2014 22:18 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:
If there were a requirement to be at least gm in Starcraft or 5k rating in DotA to be allowed to post here, the discussion might actually be useful. That isn't much, but it would prevent the most clueless to spread nonsense. That discussion is about as useful as this discussion... Being good at games =/= understanding development Having a clue how the game works strategically, mechanically and tactically is painfully apparrently not a thing people consider necessary to having an opinion.
That's the thing with opinions, anyone can have them.
You don't need to be GM or 5k+ to play or enjoy Dota 2 or SC2. Casual players are just as entitled to having their views on what makes a game fun for them as pro players do. We're not talking balance here, we're talking what would make good game design.
|
|
|
On May 18 2014 03:01 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2014 00:31 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:On May 18 2014 00:12 ZodaSoda wrote:On May 17 2014 22:18 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:
If there were a requirement to be at least gm in Starcraft or 5k rating in DotA to be allowed to post here, the discussion might actually be useful. That isn't much, but it would prevent the most clueless to spread nonsense. That discussion is about as useful as this discussion... Being good at games =/= understanding development Having a clue how the game works strategically, mechanically and tactically is painfully apparrently not a thing people consider necessary to having an opinion. That's the thing with opinions, anyone can have them. You don't need to be GM or 5k+ to play or enjoy Dota 2 or SC2. Casual players are just as entitled to having their views on what makes a game fun for them as pro players do. We're not talking balance here, we're talking what would make good game design.
Browder, Morhaime and Sigaty are not GMs.
they've forgotten more about game design than every GM on all 3 ladders combined.
ummm ya LOL
i found at least 1 pretty glaring error.
D3 was at 10+ million in 2012.
and another that is almost certainly an error
WoL was at 4.5 million in december 2010.
its hard to believe only 100,000 units sold for the next 3 years, especially with all those $20 Walmart sales.
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ACTI/3176091296x0x440263/2a37de98-400f-4916-9bb3-ae5ddf1b86b8/ATVI C4Q10 slides FINAL.pdf
|
I think for a future RTS to be succesful it needs to have a competitive mode that is separate from the general experience of playing the RTS. The core gameplay of RTS games has, historically, never been what's driven sales or interest in RTS games.
9.5 million people didn't buy the original Starcraft to play 1v1 or team games in multiplayer. The same goes for Warcraft 3. Only a smaller fraction of people who bought those games did it for the core multiplayer gameplay experience.
The majority buy RTS games for the campaigns and for the modified online game modes (Arcade, UMS).
As such I think any future RTS that hopes to be "the next big thing", needs to have an innovative multiplayer mode that is separate from its competitive mode, but still similar enough in all the important aspects.
Example: A multiplayer campaign mode MMORTS, played on a world with spherical geometry, like Supreme Commander but on a much much bigger scale. The world is so big that different grids of the world are each and all on their own servers. Players can cross grids and battle for world wide domination. Like Civilization but as a massive multiplayer online real time strategy game. A game cycle is 1 month, where all civilizations (players) start small at a pre-historic level, and then evolve technologically through resource gathering, research, alliances and warfare. In future expansion packs, they could expand the game to evolve into a space age, and into new worlds.
It would be a mix of Eve Online, Age of Empires, Supreme Commander and World of Warcraft.
Something like that could easily represent the future of RTS. The 3.5 million people who bought SC2 only to play the campaign, could conceivably all become regular players of such an RTS. At the same time such a game would be a huge technological undertaking.
That RTS would ideally have a separate competitive esports mode which perhaps shared units and lore with the general "MMORTS campaign"-style game, but was different in all the ways that matter to make it a legitimate esports game.
I do not believe that traditional RTS' were ever casual accessible or "widely popular". It's just a misconception we have because so many people used to play use map settings, DotA and such in RTS games of yore.
|
This is the exact same reason I think that it's absurd that Starcraft II is trying to cater to casuals (or at least trying to not alienize casuals by making changes to its competitive mode).
The fundamental barriers for getting into the competitive mode of a classical RTS game are too big for any casual-compromises to have ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the popularity of said RTS game's multiplayer competitive mode
In other words: You are only pissing off your current player base and your current spectators by believing Starcraft II 1v1 multiplayer needs to take the feelings of the average WoW casual in mind in the design decision making process.
|
I hate big epic deathball battles, building up the kill army is not as good as a well played strategy in my opinion.
|
The one thing that gets me in this thread is that people are incapable of accepting that any RTS that isn't a competitive 1v1 could ever be fun.
BGH anyone?
|
I think people put entirely too much weight in "how popular" StarCraft is. Always suggestions pop up about making an RTS-MOBA hybrid just to boost popularity and ratings. I think popularity is important to a degree (more tournaments, better prize pools) but ultimately I don't consider how popular something is to be a measure of how "good" something is. If that's the case we should all just listen to Lady Gaga, because she is probably more popular then 5 artists that I listen to put together. Or everybody should just make their music more "pop-y" just to make their music more popular and therefore better.
I think we need to ask ourselves more "what brought you into StarCraft in the first place?" If it was just the hype, then you may as well leave because the hype wagon departed from StarCraft a long time ago. Also ask yourself this, if you had a choice between moving forward into an RTS that was twice as good in terms of design but half as popular, or an RTS that was half as good but three times as popular, which would you choose? I would choose the better RTS in a heartbeat and I'm sure many people would follow. If somebody created the ultimate RTS that was 10 times as good as StarCraft but there was only 5000 people watching the tournaments on a good day, I would be right there with those 5000 people. I have no qualms about being a part of an "underground" community.
To answer my own question of "what brought me into StarCraft in the first place," for me it was the amazing measure of skill that players are able to achieve. I was awestruck watching players like Boxer micro so perfectly, watching APM demonstrations, watching people master this incredibly challenging game. Before I became a diehard StarCraft fan I was a martial arts enthusiast, but when I started college lack of time and money pushed me into StarCraft and I never looked back. StarCraft is something you can practice on your own time in your own home for extremely cheap. I think coming from a martial arts background has perhaps given me a different outlook on StarCraft in the sense that I don't really see it as just a video game that you play for fun, but more as a skill base and even a sense of self expression. StarCraft is only fun if you enjoy self improvement and taking on immense challenges (this game is a hard nut to crack). Its not a casual video game that you play for instant satisfaction, and I don't believe that it should be that way either.
I think that a great RTS is a lot harder to design then a lot of people give it credit for. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think that designing a MOBA - RTS hybrid would be a bad thing (it may even be very successful), but I see it as a stand alone thing, not the direction that the entire RTS genre should take. Leave something for the RTS purists
|
On May 18 2014 03:42 LaLuSh wrote:
...
Example: A multiplayer campaign mode MMORTS, played on a world with spherical geometry, like Supreme Commander but on a much much bigger scale. The world is so big that different grids of the world are each and all on their own servers. Players can cross grids and battle for world wide domination. Like Civilization but as a massive multiplayer online real time strategy game. A game cycle is 1 month, where all civilizations (players) start small at a pre-historic level, and then evolve technologically through resource gathering, research, alliances and warfare. In future expansion packs, they could expand the game to evolve into a space age, and into new worlds.
It would be a mix of Eve Online, Age of Empires, Supreme Commander and World of Warcraft.
...
Sounds great, I would definitely play that, especially if it starts in stone age!
|
Blizzard is better at making money off of RTS than any other company.
If the current level of profit does not justify another title the community should just accept that and be happy with SC2 and WC3 OR BroodWar OR
they can play RA2 or AoE or whatever old RTS still has an active community.
the last game to have a budget any where close to SC2 was probably RA3 which was finished in October 2008.
all other RTS games are low budget with low budget server support and half-assed competitive ladders.
Hell, in CoH2 you can just pull ur network chord and get the game declared a tie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
