EPTOn May 28 2014 01:13 Big J wrote:
Nope, micro is not inherently fun.
Nope, micro is not inherently fun.
Nothing is inherently fun -_-
The future of RTS games - Page 47
| 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. | ||
|
HeatEXTEND
Netherlands836 Posts
Nothing is inherently fun -_- | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On May 28 2014 03:02 Xiphos wrote: Yeah micro is only fun if you have highly potential result with interesting abilities on the unit. MOBA's unit is superior than modernized RTS in that department. Micro is waaaaaaaay more than spellcasting. Spreading units, flanking, position, using abilities, hard counters, soft counters, etc. MOBAs don't have ANYTHING on RTS in terms of micro. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 28 2014 03:45 Incognoto wrote: Micro is waaaaaaaay more than spellcasting. Spreading units, flanking, position, using abilities, hard counters, soft counters, etc. MOBAs don't have ANYTHING on RTS in terms of micro. Depends. Dota had lane control through manipulating the creep AI, stacking and tones of other ways to control the game that require lots of practice. Micro is such a subjective and over used term anyways. At the highest levels of both games types it requires all of the player's focus. | ||
|
IMPrime
United States715 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
in layman's terms, obviously | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The micro is different, but no less taxing than it is in SC2(mentally). Openings are thin and being in the right place at the right moment can turn a whole fight around, or lose it. And you need to do it with 4 other people. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 28 2014 04:40 Plansix wrote: Well look at it this way, creep micro and controlling the AI is a way to get farm(income) when you normally couldn't. It's commonly used in match ups im uneven between heroes, such as a ranged hero vs a melee hero. It means that a player who is good at it can get farm where another, less skilled play could not. And it can lead to mistakes and even getting killed if you don't pull the agro properly. The same goes for stacking and other economy based activities in dota. And you need to do all of this while being aware of what is happening on the map and that no one is setting up to murder you. You don't have to move as fast as you do in SC2, but the margin for error is much thinner in dota and other mobas and one second of bad movement could set you behind for the game. The micro is different, but no less taxing than it is in SC2(mentally). Openings are thin and being in the right place at the right moment can turn a whole fight around, or lose it. And you need to do it with 4 other people. Presentation wise, its also a more "active" macro style, in that the player *could* just focus on his hero and not care about the minimap and still be able to maximize his own personal chances of doing well, and if he kept track of the minimap, he could maximize how well the team overall does also. As opposed to an RTS where the presentation of the macro focus can be a bit removed from what a new player *wants* it to be. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
You control one hero/champion and you have to keep track of (usually) a maximum of 4 abilities. That is the extent to which YOU can influence a game. You suck but you still want to play multiplayer? No problems. You can play an entire multiplayer game while being completely centered on your own viewpoint if you're so inclined. It won't be a shit experience. You only have to focus on one character and how that character interacts with the game world. I'm not looking down at MOBAs. I play dota2 myself instead of SC2. And there's plenty of room for complexity in MOBAs if you're the type of player that's looking for it. The basics of the multiplayer MOBA experience is very cognitively manageable is what I'm trying to say. RTS games are an entirely different beast when it comes to multiplayer. Even experienced players will have their hands full simply fighting against the complexity of the genre itself. Avoiding food/supply blocks, managing economy to the extent required, creeping patterns, production, micro. The battle with the game is hardly overcomeable by itself. Throw in a human opponent in there and you will be guaranteed to be cognitively overloaded. It's not a genre that lends itself well to just casually doing your thing and "enjoying yourself" (unless it's singleplayer). I don't disagree with what BigJ and Xiphos say. I just think there is no way you can make a classical RTS game that sells widely AND is highly replayable (meaning it will retain those players in its multiplayer experience, or have a chance to expand upon its playerbase due to the multiplayer experience). In reaching out to the part of the player base that enjoy sitting quietly building up, "making choices", and occasionally battling when it suits them -- the RTS genre needs to change. Those players already play singeplayer. Just need to give them a (content-driven) reason to play multiplayer. On May 28 2014 03:02 Xiphos wrote: Yeah micro is only fun if you have highly potential result with interesting abilities on the unit. MOBA's unit is superior than modernized RTS in that department. You could include highly interesting abilities on units in an RTS and it would still be a completely different experience. The value of detailed micromanagement goes down as scales increase. It becomes more important to focus on the entire army's average outcome than the details of using any single interesting ability perfectly. RTS games can have elements of these things (muta, vulture moving shot, storms, reaver scarabs, for example). But their relative importance will decrease as any single game moves from order to disorder (increased game length ---> more things to keep track of, increased complexity and cognitive load; small scale micro fades out of relevance). One could add: "So why don't we remove all these boring cognitive loads and focus on the fun stuff?" Problem is, if you do, you're no longer really left with an RTS. You instead have what is called a MOBA/ARTS: a genre where all the boring parts of a classical RTS are removed. Someone already beat you to it. | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
 | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On May 28 2014 06:18 LaLuSh wrote: In my opinion the reason MOBAs appeal to a wider audience is simple: You control one hero/champion and you have to keep track of (usually) a maximum of 4 abilities. That is the extent to which YOU can influence a game. You suck but you still want to play multiplayer? No problems. You can play an entire multiplayer game while being completely centered on your own viewpoint if you're so inclined. It won't be a shit experience. You only have to focus on one character and how that character interacts with the game world. I'm not looking down at MOBAs. I play dota2 myself instead of SC2. And there's plenty of room for complexity in MOBAs if you're the type of player that's looking for it. The basics of the multiplayer MOBA experience is very cognitively manageable is what I'm trying to say. RTS games are an entirely different beast when it comes to multiplayer. Even experienced players will have their hands full simply fighting against the complexity of the genre itself. Avoiding food/supply blocks, managing economy to the extent required, creeping patterns, production, micro. The battle with the game is hardly overcomeable by itself. Throw in a human opponent in there and you will be guaranteed to be cognitively overloaded. It's not a genre that lends itself well to just casually doing your thing and "enjoying yourself" (unless it's singleplayer). I don't disagree with what BigJ and Xiphos say. I just think there is no way you can make a classical RTS game that sells widely AND is highly replayable (meaning it will retain those players in its multiplayer experience, or have a chance to expand upon its playerbase due to the multiplayer experience). In reaching out to the part of the player base that enjoy sitting quietly building up, "making choices", and occasionally battling when it suits them -- the RTS genre needs to change. Those players already play singeplayer. Just need to give them a (content-driven) reason to play multiplayer. You could include highly interesting abilities on units in an RTS and it would still be a completely different experience. The value of detailed micromanagement goes down as scales increase. It becomes more important to focus on the entire army's average outcome than the details of using any single interesting ability perfectly. RTS games can have elements of these things (muta, vulture moving shot, storms, reaver scarabs, for example). But their relative importance will decrease as any single game moves from order to disorder (increased game length ---> more things to keep track of, increased complexity and cognitive load; small scale micro fades out of relevance). One could add: "So why don't we remove all these boring cognitive loads and focus on the fun stuff?" Problem is, if you do, you're no longer really left with an RTS. You instead have what is called a MOBA/ARTS: a genre where all the boring parts of a classical RTS are removed. Someone already beat you to it. If there is a way to refute this I can't see it. Sums up most of this thread. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8001 Posts
On May 28 2014 06:45 Spaylz wrote: WC3 was and is the greatest game of all time. That is all. Dude, Total Annihilation..  I honestly think the sosial aspect is one of the main reasons. Sc2 felt very lonely, even while in a top-end clan/org. The second I left that there was nothing left for me in the game anymore. Even without friends in dota, you still communicate with your team..for better or worse. And usually you'll have or gain friends who you can play and share the experience with as you progress. | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1965 Posts
Problem is, if you do, you're no longer really left with an RTS. You instead have what is called a MOBA/ARTS: a genre where all the boring parts of a classical RTS are removed. Someone already beat you to it. I guess it depends on what you consider being "boring". I agree in general though. It might be impossible to please the casuals and the hardcores. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On May 28 2014 07:12 TaShadan wrote: I guess it depends on what you consider being "boring". I agree in general though. It might be impossible to please the casuals and the hardcores. Casuals never played the RTS anyway. Actually, I would think SC2 has a much better conversion of buyers->ladder players than any other RTS proceeding it. Fact is that Player vs Player RTS was never very popular in pure percentages. People arguing about how RTS games lost to MOBAs are missing the history. The MOBA audience was always there, and were always the dominant audience. That's why Battle.net was filled with far more Bound, RPG, DBZ maps, etc. than actual Starcraft. Same with WC3. Custom maps were always more popular than ladder, and when a very well-made custom called DotA was made (and refined)...well, yeah. But that's a dead horse too. SC2's Arcade isn't as useful, the customs aren't as addictive, and so on. But that only helps SC2 sales, and not SC2 e-sports. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
I suppose pros might not like it because competitiveness by nature tries to have the same game each time. But I would think that the pros would just use certain blocks or patches to play if they really wanted a more constant experience. Like they would play specifically "Daggoth-era Zerg" or "Confederate Terran." | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On May 28 2014 06:55 Thieving Magpie wrote: If there is a way to refute this I can't see it. Sums up most of this thread. Competitively, you can't refute this. If you're playing a casual FFA with friends it's literally: "i'm building shit don't attack me" and everyone agrees and chats in the mean time. generally speaking, it's possible to play online with other people without the competitive mind-set; you just have to make sure the other players agree. It's pretty much like single-player except that you're online, with your friends and you use diplomacy to not get attacked. | ||
|
Eek858
United States1 Post
But, I tried the free version a few months ago and now I'm hooked. I've bought the games and I'm really getting into all the nuances the game has to offer. I think the most surprising part is how much I enjoy the pro scene. I regularly watch TB's and Day[9]'s coverage. It's fun to watch a pro game and then try to emulate it(very poorly) in my own game. I wish I would have found this game years ago. I would think there are more players out there like me who would give the game a try if they were aware that it wouldn't cost them anything. Maybe it could expose more people to how much fun the game is and how great the community/esports scene can be. I don't think the game needs to change. Maybe just how you get new people aware of the game. Large learning curves aren't a bad thing and there will always be a market looking for a game like Starcraft. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On May 28 2014 06:55 Thieving Magpie wrote: If there is a way to refute this I can't see it. Sums up most of this thread. Agreed. And, by the by, just to add another example of the crazy goodness in the arcade, a FPS shooter: | ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
On May 28 2014 06:18 LaLuSh wrote: In my opinion the reason MOBAs appeal to a wider audience is simple: You control one hero/champion and you have to keep track of (usually) a maximum of 4 abilities. That is the extent to which YOU can influence a game. You suck but you still want to play multiplayer? No problems. You can play an entire multiplayer game while being completely centered on your own viewpoint if you're so inclined. It won't be a shit experience. You only have to focus on one character and how that character interacts with the game world. I'm not looking down at MOBAs. I play dota2 myself instead of SC2. And there's plenty of room for complexity in MOBAs if you're the type of player that's looking for it. The basics of the multiplayer MOBA experience is very cognitively manageable is what I'm trying to say. RTS games are an entirely different beast when it comes to multiplayer. Even experienced players will have their hands full simply fighting against the complexity of the genre itself. Avoiding food/supply blocks, managing economy to the extent required, creeping patterns, production, micro. The battle with the game is hardly overcomeable by itself. Throw in a human opponent in there and you will be guaranteed to be cognitively overloaded. It's not a genre that lends itself well to just casually doing your thing and "enjoying yourself" (unless it's singleplayer). I don't disagree with what BigJ and Xiphos say. I just think there is no way you can make a classical RTS game that sells widely AND is highly replayable (meaning it will retain those players in its multiplayer experience, or have a chance to expand upon its playerbase due to the multiplayer experience). In reaching out to the part of the player base that enjoy sitting quietly building up, "making choices", and occasionally battling when it suits them -- the RTS genre needs to change. Those players already play singeplayer. Just need to give them a (content-driven) reason to play multiplayer. On May 28 2014 03:02 Xiphos wrote: Yeah micro is only fun if you have highly potential result with interesting abilities on the unit. MOBA's unit is superior than modernized RTS in that department. You could include highly interesting abilities on units in an RTS and it would still be a completely different experience. The value of detailed micromanagement goes down as scales increase. It becomes more important to focus on the entire army's average outcome than the details of using any single interesting ability perfectly. RTS games can have elements of these things (muta, vulture moving shot, storms, reaver scarabs, for example). But their relative importance will decrease as any single game moves from order to disorder (increased game length ---> more things to keep track of, increased complexity and cognitive load; small scale micro fades out of relevance). One could add: "So why don't we remove all these boring cognitive loads and focus on the fun stuff?" Problem is, if you do, you're no longer really left with an RTS. You instead have what is called a MOBA/ARTS: a genre where all the boring parts of a classical RTS are removed. Someone already beat you to it. You wrote a good post, however the last sentence doesn't make any sense. It wouldn't be a "problem" that "RTS" wouldn't be name of the game any more. A majority of the people couldn't care less if you call it "RTS" or "MOBA". The casuals play a game as long as it is fun. The initial idea of the OP to mix the two genres still stands: Make a MOBA, but instead of minions and have each player control multiple units. Let the players choose heroes and units at the beginning of the match. Here is how one team could look like (using SC2 units for demonstration only): Player 1: Jimmy Raynor + 4 hydras + 2 hellions + 1 immortal Player 2: Tychus Findley + 2 medivac + 3 reaper + 4 hellbats Player 3: Sarah Kerrigan + 8 zerglings + 2 raven + 2 high templar Player 4: Rory Swann + 6 marines + 2 sentry + 1 archon Heroes and units resurrect after some delay. Now, obviously this won't be anything like a MOBA. It also won't be anything like a traditional RTS. It will have its own set of strategies and tactics. | ||
|
LittleRagey
United States24 Posts
| ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
It is only a handful of hardcore players like on TL that really care. Let the casuals decide! | ||
| ||
