EPTThe future of RTS games - Page 33
| 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. | ||
|
Tjej
14 Posts
| ||
|
lamprey1
Canada919 Posts
On May 18 2014 04:18 Tjej wrote: Didn't the OP just simply describe War3? Khaldor made a blogpost about how he thought War4 would be the future of RTS games post-sc2... Lines up and some guy posted a quote of a guy from Blizzard that made the creation of War4 sound like a long shot. | ||
|
Chvol
United States200 Posts
We sit around waiting years and years blizzard to update and improve the game, since they are only willing to make significant updates through expansions. But what else can we do? There is no alternative if you want to play RTS. If another developer came along with an RTS similar to sc2 that they supported a lot more actively, that would spell the end of sc2. If a near clone of SC2 were to come out as free to play with skins, and more frequent patches to more aggressively iron out design or balance problems, along with a massive patch once per year to shake up the meta entirely, it would render SC2 obsolete. It just baffles me that there is so much competition in MMO, MOBA, and even FPS, but RTS hasn't had even a single new title make a stab at being the next big thing. Definitely feels like the genre that has the most room for new titles at the moment. I think there could also be room in the e-sports space for an RTS designed for 2v2 or 3v3, not 1v1. That might have potential to get huge, but nobody can know since it has never been tried.. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25110 Posts
On May 18 2014 03:42 LaLuSh wrote: 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. What you said echoes what I conceive of a next level RTS potentially looking like, and the thought excited me. Wish we could have more of this kind of discussion! | ||
|
BungaBunga
Italy23 Posts
- World wide MMORTS - Starts in stone age - Terrain is the actual earth modeled from Google Earth - 45 different races similar to Civilization - You control area by stationing troops and building cities - If your race is defeated, you respawn as an ally of the one that defeated you - Continue until one race achieves world domination - Races advance through ages according to the available tech - Since no one can play 24/7: If you quit, the game continues and your race is taken over by another player. - The next time you login, you can check progress, ask to take over or start a new game with a new race. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On May 18 2014 05:02 BungaBunga wrote: To expand on LaLush's idea: - World wide MMORTS - Starts in stone age - Terrain is the actual earth modeled from Google Earth - 45 different races similar to Civilization - You control area by stationing troops and building cities - If your race is defeated, you respawn as an ally of the one that defeated you - Continue until one race achieves world domination - Races advance through ages according to the available tech - Since no one can play 24/7: If you quit, the game continues and your race is taken over by another player. - The next time you login, you can check progress, ask to take over or start a new game with a new race. So many lives would be consumed by this game. Including mine. WE NEED TO TAKE MOSCOW BEFORE WINTER! WINTER IS COMING! You'd have random natural disasters occur periodically. Earthquakes, hurricanes, floodings, droughts. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25110 Posts
| ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
On May 17 2014 10:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: so many errors here i don't know where to begin. There is no "3 way rotation" to keep WoW fresh. Blizzard's biggest dev team works on WoW 24/7/365 producing a constant non-stop stream of content. here is the content produced for WoW. http://www.wowwiki.com/Timeline_(World_of_Warcraft) Blizzard's work on its game is commensurate with profit levels. D3 and WoW are more profitable than SC2. and Blizzard makes decisions according to money. and so, Blizzard has moved the RTS team over to a MOBA because they see it as a bigger market. This fact is outlined in Browder's opening speech at Blizzcon 2013. One guy is claiming this is because Browder knows the SC2 engine so it makes sense to move him over the the MOBA. Browder is a very high level designer and his day-to-day job is not married to the SC2 engine. Browder does not interact with any gaming engines anywhere on the level of writing lines of code. This fact was outlined in the SC2 "behind hte scenes" DVD. Browder is not part of the "engine team". D3 sold 15 million units and that number will jump in August. SC2 sold anywhere from 5 to 8 million depending on whose #s you want to believe. There is no point in comparing WoW's profitability to SC2. This "rotation" continues to get longer and longer as Blizzard finds better, more profitable things to do. At this point Blizz is on pace to pump out a single $40 expansion for its RTS game over a 5 year period. But, there is no slow down in content for WoW. Could it be that WoW makes 8345949X more money than SC2? Gee i wonder? Its good to be unable to comprehend a post and to post false dichotomies constantly as if it meant something. First, WoW is a subscription based game and cannot be compared to any other of Blizzard's titles, so just give that up saying they keep producting content for it. All paid MMOs keep a team working on it, no one time purchase games keep a large team working on them after the project is done. Second, Blizzard has supported StarCraft 2 already more than it supported the original Diablo. It supported the game with 1 expansion the same as it supported Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Diablo 2, and StarCraft. Third, Blizzard is actively pumping money into eSports for StarCraft 2 in a way that it has never before. You can lie and fabricate all you want. You can scream the sky is falling all you want. However, you cannot deny that Blizzard has supported StarCraft more than any previous nonMMO. You also cannot deny that in planning for another expansion and putting one out about ever 3 years they are continuing to support the game. Don't let the facts get in the way with your emotional whining though. | ||
|
lamprey1
Canada919 Posts
On May 18 2014 05:42 Eliezar wrote: First, WoW is a subscription based game and cannot be compared to any other of Blizzard's titles, so just give that up saying they keep producting content for it. All paid MMOs keep a team working on it, no one time purchase games keep a large team working on them after the project is done. Second, Blizzard has supported StarCraft 2 already more than it supported the original Diablo. It supported the game with 1 expansion the same as it supported Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Diablo 2, and StarCraft. Third, Blizzard is actively pumping money into eSports for StarCraft 2 in a way that it has never before. i just go by how often Blizzard is asking for money from the RTS fans. Blizzard themselves knows they can't get any money out of the genre.. its like taking blood from a stone. which is why they've asked for $40 in 5 years. Blizzard knows RTS fans won't spend money. MMO fans will spend money. how much money is Blizzard pumping into sc2 esports? do you have a source for this? All this money does is take away from the profitability of SC2. Blizzcon is a big fat money loser. none of this explains how all the top RTS studios are now gone. EALA, Ensemble, and on and on. its already been outlined. The RTS community spends so little on the games no wonder they get CoH2, a low budget game where all u have to do is pull the network chord to get a tie. SOunds like 1999 all over again. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On May 18 2014 05:42 Eliezar wrote: Its good to be unable to comprehend a post and to post false dichotomies constantly as if it meant something. First, WoW is a subscription based game and cannot be compared to any other of Blizzard's titles, so just give that up saying they keep producting content for it. All paid MMOs keep a team working on it, no one time purchase games keep a large team working on them after the project is done. Second, Blizzard has supported StarCraft 2 already more than it supported the original Diablo. It supported the game with 1 expansion the same as it supported Warcraft 2, Warcraft 3, Diablo 2, and StarCraft. Third, Blizzard is actively pumping money into eSports for StarCraft 2 in a way that it has never before. You can lie and fabricate all you want. You can scream the sky is falling all you want. However, you cannot deny that Blizzard has supported StarCraft more than any previous nonMMO. You also cannot deny that in planning for another expansion and putting one out about ever 3 years they are continuing to support the game. Don't let the facts get in the way with your emotional whining though. Don't know man, Blizzard is actively slowing down their involvement in RTS esport. At first we got all those WCS events all over the world separating by countries, then into continent, then into global. The 2nd year, we got all those WCS events in each continents, then having a global season's final until a bigger global event later in the year. And now we only have continental WCS competitions into a global event. Everybody would say that Blizzard is digressing away from involving themselves in SC2. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25110 Posts
| ||
|
Arrinao
21 Posts
On May 17 2014 15:12 urboss wrote: I'm just wondering: Poll: Will Heroes of the Storm reach LoL/Dota2 popularity? No (35) Yes (4) 39 total votes Your vote: Will Heroes of the Storm reach LoL/Dota2 popularity? If it does, chances of a StarCraft 3 release are diminished. However, if Heroes of the Storm fails, the future for StarCraft 3 is bright! Sigh. Why even make a poll like this? Do you really think the things are so simple here with your fanboi (no offense meant here, just a friendly jab) kinda view of success or failure determined by the game beating or not beating the top MOBA's ? Even with current SMITE's level of popularity, the game will probably be more profitable than Stacraft 2. It will, at some point always surpass the revenue from Sc2 because unlike it, the game is f2p, generating an endless stream of money. My personal opinion on the subject is that HOTS will indeed reach SMITE's level of popularity (whether it will surpass it or not will be dependant on it's success in the Asia which we'll see this year). It won't beat Dota2 and by extension, not LoL, but it will be profitable enough to employ the Team 1 for a long time (my guess is following 5 years at least). As for Starcraft franchise, well, it once occured to me, that since Activision is now the sole owner of Blizzard, it might, when Call of Duty wears off, consider rebooting Starcraft Ghost, as a collaboration of Blizzard and Infinity Ward, or some other Activision developer. Just an idea though, we'll see  | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On May 18 2014 06:00 Xiphos wrote: Don't know man, Blizzard is actively slowing down their involvement in RTS esport. At first we got all those WCS events all over the world separating by countries, then into continent, then into global. The 2nd year, we got all those WCS events in each continents, then having a global season's final until a bigger global event later in the year. And now we only have continental WCS competitions into a global event. Everybody would say that Blizzard is digressing away from involving themselves in SC2. The first WCS was meant to be in WCG style, but they decided that they wanted more long running tournaments like the GSL, and they actually increased the prizepool in the second year. As for the removal of the season finals, people disliked them, so they took them out. Fewer total tournaments doesn't necessarily mean less commitment, and I don't think they would put in the money they currently are for a game they aren't interested in. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On May 18 2014 05:19 LaLuSh wrote: So many lives would be consumed by this game. Including mine. WE NEED TO TAKE MOSCOW BEFORE WINTER! WINTER IS COMING! You'd have random natural disasters occur periodically. Earthquakes, hurricanes, floodings, droughts. I would totally die from starvation or lack of sleep after a couple of week. | ||
|
BungaBunga
Italy23 Posts
"Why not keep the same basic mechanics and unit types of SC2 but have teams of 4 players where: - One player builds the bases - One player controls scouting/harassment/flying type units - One player controls the infantry - One player controls the heavy units In this way you would have to cooperate to win the game, there is a huge social element, but it is still a strategic game where good micro would be key." This is a good idea, as it would circumvent the problem you have in SC2 team games: The spectator has no way of clearly identifying who is who if everyone does everything. There may be some adjustments you want to make: - Since only building bases gets pretty boring, the build time has to be decreased. - The economy output has to be huge to support all players. - The one who builds the base is kind of a master strategist who also builds the units - The players controlling the units need to have either hero-abilities or units with more special abilities This concept reminds me a lot of normal team sports, where every player has a different role. You have a goal keeper, a defender, mid field players and offense. I fail to see why this concept was never adapted in RTS games. | ||
|
TMG26
Portugal2017 Posts
On May 18 2014 17:03 BungaBunga wrote: There was an interesting suggestion in the other post: "Why not keep the same basic mechanics and unit types of SC2 but have teams of 4 players where: - One player builds the bases - One player controls scouting/harassment/flying type units - One player controls the infantry - One player controls the heavy units In this way you would have to cooperate to win the game, there is a huge social element, but it is still a strategic game where good micro would be key." This is a good idea, as it would circumvent the problem you have in SC2 team games: The spectator has no way of clearly identifying who is who if everyone does everything. There may be some adjustments you want to make: - Since only building bases gets pretty boring, the build time has to be decreased. - The economy output has to be huge to support all players. - The one who builds the base is kind of a master strategist who also builds the units - The players controlling the units need to have either hero-abilities or units with more special abilities This concept reminds me a lot of normal team sports, where every player has a different role. You have a goal keeper, a defender, mid field players and offense. I fail to see why this concept was never adapted in RTS games. The concept was applied to RTS: DotA was born. | ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
Here is an old, put still relevant video from Destiny that emphasizes some important points. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 18 2014 21:14 urboss wrote: Since a lot of people are arguing here that the SC2 scene is not affected by casual players. Here is an old, put still relevant video from Destiny that emphasizes some important points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7rH1C964uA yeah and as much as I agree with the point that you need the casual players to play and love the game, so that they also care about the proscene. As much I don't understand what Arcade has to do with it. I played WC3 and only had a peripher knowledge of the existance of progaming. Never in the world would my love for Enfos and Tower Wars have had any impact on me watching the Progames, since it has nothing to do with what I was playing. I noticed a similar thing in my friends behaviours who recently started to play some Arcade Games in SC2 again. None of them cares at all for the professional scene. What you need is one game that draws the casuals and then has a reasonably high skill ceiling so that progaming can evolve from it. The game itself has to do the whole work, not some other games that happen to be playable when you bought the original one. Sure, such Arcade Games will help you draw in people that sooner or later will also try the main game, but they do not make them get into esports or even just keep on playing it when they don't really like it. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
On May 18 2014 03:19 lamprey1 wrote: 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 those numbers excluded digital sales. What you need is one game that draws the casuals and then has a reasonably high skill ceiling so that progaming can evolve from it. The game itself has to do the whole work, not some other games that happen to be playable when you bought the original one. Sure, such Arcade Games will help you draw in people that sooner or later will also try the main game, but they do not make them get into esports or even just keep on playing it when they don't really like it. I think there needs to be different modes here really. One "easy" mode for casuals (that could be teamgamed based and reduces the total amount of mechanics required) and then a 1on1 based mode that has a really high skill ceiling. Obviously the teamgamebased mode of SC2 doesn't really work anywhere near good enough for two reasons; 1) Build orders/refining timings are still way way too important --> high entrance barrier 2) You need to execute the same level of mechancs in 2v2 as in 1on1. I think you should be able to split the amont of mechanics required when you go into teambased mode (so you only need to perform roughly half of the tasks in a 2v2 as in a 1on1). That will, however, obviously require some radical change from the current way RTS's works. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 18 2014 21:45 Hider wrote: I think there needs to be different modes here really. One "easy" mode for casuals (that could be teamgamed based and reduces the total amount of mechanics required) and then a 1on1 based mode that has a really high skill ceiling. Obviously the teamgamebased mode of SC2 doesn't really work anywhere near good enough for two reasons; 1) Build orders/refining timings are still way way too important --> high entrance barrier 2) You need to execute the same level of mechancs in 2v2 as in 1on1. I think you should be able to split the amont of mechanics required when you go into teambased mode (so you only need to perform roughly half of the tasks in a 2v2 as in a 1on1). That will, however, obviously require some radical change from the current way RTS's works. This is obviously theorycraft, but imo the thing with RTS as we know them is that there is a huge "real-time simulation" part in it that is just about your own skill and not about interacting. Meanwhile competitive sports like tennis or football are so incredibly interesting to play for the masses, because the skill required is mostly determined by the skill you play against. You can score really nice goals and pull off the same tricks professional players do in football, when your opponent is just as bad as you are. Because he won't tackle you in the ways you'd be tackled in proplay, and a sprintduel will still be the same sprintduel as on the prolevel, just a little bit slower. On the flipside, instead of playing Starcraft you could also play your favorite transport simulator game (I can recommend Simutrans) and will see that a lot of the skills you need in those games are very similar, which is knowledge about which investments to do when and how to build up your own infrastructure. And by just getting faster and more knowledgable, you will get much better in transport simulators too. So instead of having easier or harder modes, I would rather hope to find a way to largely multiply the situations in which it is all about how good your opponent is in relation to you, whether *something* works or not. Meanwhile that *something* should feel to you the exact same as when you watch it being done by a proplayer. Even though it is not, because your opponent would have given you a much harder time if he wasn't just your own skilllevel. | ||
| ||
