EPTThe future of RTS games - Page 51
| 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. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
| ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
On June 02 2014 12:45 Gnaix wrote: People have different taste in gaming. Trying to make a game that appeals to too many different tastes is likely undesirable. Just because a game is less popular than it used to be doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it and that it needs to be changed. Would you change the rules of chess? If you would know anything about chess history, you would note that chess wasn't invented and then stayed the same forever. The game was changed many many times since its beginnings over a span of 1000 years. All the more is it insane to believe that StarCraft should be the end all be all of RTS games! | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8000 Posts
On June 02 2014 11:37 Roswell wrote: Can someone post a video or explain all the positioning and micro battles in Mobas? I cant see anything besides kiting and blink. Is it like Quake where you are fighting around powerups? I don't even know where to begin. Besides the 10 minute long constant micro battle for lasthits in your lane at the beginning, theres also when to engage, where to engage, on who to engage, finding the perfect positioning, using your spells in the correct order on the correct hero at the correct times, using your items in the correct order on the correct heroes at the correct heroes at the right time etc. Heres an entire video series dedicated to showing off the best possible micro plays in Dota: Yes, thats 80 episodes and they're not the only channel doing it. If you want to watch pro players battle it out, the International is just around the corner, and free to watch. | ||
|
TMG26
Portugal2017 Posts
[QUOTE]On June 02 2014 11:37 Roswell wrote: If you want to watch pro players battle it out, the International is just around the corner, and free to watch.[/QUOTE] Also, WPC grand final, a huge BO7 is currently live! WPC is the tournament with the biggest prizepool besides TI, and features every top Chinese teams and some top western teams. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 02 2014 17:07 Thieving Magpie wrote: I don't really think "hard to balance" is a valid excuse when trying to push a genre. It will always be hard to push a genre. Its harder to balance a 3 race RTS than a 2 race RTS, didn't stop Blizz from trying. Its harder to balance a 4 race RTS than a 3 race RTS, didn't stop blizz from trying. It being hard to balance just means developers need to suck less and try more. That's not a flaw in he design, thats a flaw in the laziness of people. The reason you can't add too many abilities/techs/etc is that it makes it hard to tell what's happening and it makes scouting a lot less useful. If you scout a Robo, there's only a set number of things that can be made. It's not balance that's difficult for multiple races, it's making the races feel unique. There was a lot of complaints when SC2 came out that roaches and marauders were too similar (for some reason). Balancing races is relatively easy. It's balancing races while still making them feel and play completely different from one another that's super difficult. I mean, I can't really think about what a fourth race would even be in SC2... | ||
|
mostevil
United Kingdom611 Posts
On June 02 2014 12:21 althaz wrote: Does this sound to anybody else basically like Warcraft 3? A game that many Starcraft fans (myself included) weren't really big fans of? This all sounds way too over simplified for my taste... Maybe it;s what the mass market wants though. I'm right there with you. I hate the whole hero unit dynamic  But the Bliz team are secretly very keen on it, what with the mothership/core, that leveling up silver surfer thingy and talk of the double-down Thor that keeps raising its ugly head. Unless something big changes the next Starcraft type game is not going to be a Blizzard one. On June 02 2014 12:21 althaz wrote: Also, you missed 1991's Mega Lo Mania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Lo_Mania) from your list of RTS games. It was my first exposure and an awesome game (one of my favourites until I played the first C&C). Oh I'd forgotten all about this. Daft but really good fun. | ||
|
frajen86
168 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On June 03 2014 06:52 DoubleReed wrote: The reason you can't add too many abilities/techs/etc is that it makes it hard to tell what's happening and it makes scouting a lot less useful. If you scout a Robo, there's only a set number of things that can be made. It's not balance that's difficult for multiple races, it's making the races feel unique. There was a lot of complaints when SC2 came out that roaches and marauders were too similar (for some reason). Balancing races is relatively easy. It's balancing races while still making them feel and play completely different from one another that's super difficult. I mean, I can't really think about what a fourth race would even be in SC2... You think too classically. Say the skilltrees are extremely big, yet you have to decide on what you could even use beforehand and the opponent knows about it. Scouting issue solved. Or aof the 5resources in the game any map only provides 2-3types. Or you remove the fog of war or at least change it. You add free scouting like overview tabs. A thousand and one ways that can be experimented with. All these balance or design problems that people make out with new ideas only occur if you make a Starcraftstyle RTS to begin with, but what those ideas want to overcome anyways. Uniqueness... I'd say 90% of it is looks and stories and lore. What's the real difference between a stalker/dragoon, hydralisk, marine, marauder, immortal, roach, goliath, unsieged tank? Stats, an ability but most of them are just 2-in-1 versions of one another. What makes them unique by design is the looks and lore. What makes them unique in gameplay is the races they are on and how you therefore can combine them with other units. Often just one real difference is enough to create unique gameplay, like zergling superspeed making Zerg "the mobile race". But did you know that the race with the highest average movement speed (offcreep) is actually Protoss? Another race for Starcraft? What about a real airbased race like some Nomad-aliens. A hero-race ala Xel Naga. A race without units, just buildings like a living planet. Sure, they might not fit in the current lore or gameplay. But if it was only P and T and then someone came in and said:"hey, here is this new race that only needs one mainbuilding for production and has the WC2 Tier sytem instead of the one we stole from CnC for Protoss and Terran. And insted of progressive civilizations it's going to some slimy animals controlled by some central organism." Would you belive it would fit. Probably not. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 02 2014 18:20 Excludos wrote: I don't even know where to begin. Besides the 10 minute long constant micro battle for lasthits in your lane at the beginning, theres also when to engage, where to engage, on who to engage, finding the perfect positioning, using your spells in the correct order on the correct hero at the correct times, using your items in the correct order on the correct heroes at the correct heroes at the right time etc. Heres an entire video series dedicated to showing off the best possible micro plays in Dota: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rOxvIkBw8U Yes, thats 80 episodes and they're not the only channel doing it. If you want to watch pro players battle it out, the International is just around the corner, and free to watch. Oh man, I love Dota cinema. Plays of the week is only surpassed in its awesome by fails of the week, which are also amazing. | ||
Falling
Canada11322 Posts
What's the real difference between a stalker/dragoon, hydralisk, marine, marauder, immortal, roach, goliath, unsieged tank? Stats, an ability but most of them are just 2-in-1 versions of one another. What makes them unique by design is the looks and lore. What makes them unique in gameplay is the races they are on and how you therefore can combine them with other units. I'm not sure I agree with that, well maybe in SC2 I could. But what makes those units unique is not only look and lore, but also how they handle when you micro them. How quickly can you start and stop them between firing, what sort of unit vs unit can you attack-retreat vs spread out and move in. Microbility is what differentiates them (or lackthereof.) Now if you are talking about Age II or Warcraft II, then yes for the most part the unit differences were largely cosmetic, excluding spells. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
You could provide him with a list of differences: size, speed, turn rate, damage, rate of attack, damage point ("frontswing duration"), turret-based (goliath, immortal,tank) vs non turret bases units (the rest); even within the subgroup of turret-based units you will find variations in yaw (allowed rotation around the vertical axis -- Goliaths can only rotate 180 degrees); you will find turrets which track while moving (BW) whereas others follow the direction of movement (SC2). Some of these he actually mentions (they fall under the definition of "stats"). I'd say there are plenty of real differences there still. But what do I know I just post brood war elitist comments everywhere. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Ok some of them have projectiles you can "kinda" dodge, but not really either. Sure they are different in many stats, but it is a "marginal" (micro)difference overall still. If you give one unit real projectiles for example (which are shot in a direction, not a unit), they would feel A LOT different, i think he means stuff like that. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 03 2014 07:28 Big J wrote: You think too classically. Say the skilltrees are extremely big, yet you have to decide on what you could even use beforehand and the opponent knows about it. Scouting issue solved. Or aof the 5resources in the game any map only provides 2-3types. Or you remove the fog of war or at least change it. You add free scouting like overview tabs. A thousand and one ways that can be experimented with. All these balance or design problems that people make out with new ideas only occur if you make a Starcraftstyle RTS to begin with, but what those ideas want to overcome anyways. Uniqueness... I'd say 90% of it is looks and stories and lore. What's the real difference between a stalker/dragoon, hydralisk, marine, marauder, immortal, roach, goliath, unsieged tank? Stats, an ability but most of them are just 2-in-1 versions of one another. What makes them unique by design is the looks and lore. What makes them unique in gameplay is the races they are on and how you therefore can combine them with other units. Often just one real difference is enough to create unique gameplay, like zergling superspeed making Zerg "the mobile race". But did you know that the race with the highest average movement speed (offcreep) is actually Protoss? Another race for Starcraft? What about a real airbased race like some Nomad-aliens. A hero-race ala Xel Naga. A race without units, just buildings like a living planet. Sure, they might not fit in the current lore or gameplay. But if it was only P and T and then someone came in and said:"hey, here is this new race that only needs one mainbuilding for production and has the WC2 Tier sytem instead of the one we stole from CnC for Protoss and Terran. And insted of progressive civilizations it's going to some slimy animals controlled by some central organism." Would you belive it would fit. Probably not. Totally disagree. And you're thinking too small, you have to think of the race as a whole. The micro is completely different between a Zealot and a Zergling. Especially when they fight each other... Why would you compare 'average movement speed' of units? Trivial comparison (especially if you take out creep for no reason). There's many distinct differences with the races: Zerg: Short range units, swarms opponents, evolves units/buildings, larva Terran: All ranged units, "scrappy" with Glass-Cannon units, transforming units/buildings (add-ons esp.), builds normally Protoss: Mix of ranged/melee units, beefy units, more casters/abilities, builds normally + warp gates And that's just off the top of my head. These are real solid differences. And it's the main reason why it's so difficult to play multiple races. Because the races really do require different styles of gameplay to be effective. But in Warcraft 3, for instance, they didn't have the differences of the races nearly as dramatic as the ones in Starcraft. Instead, the flavor came mostly out of abilities and heroes. But I don't think you can make that claim in Starcraft. The races genuinely handle totally different. You could add another race, but you really do want to avoid overlap. All of those units you mentioned handle totally differently. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On June 03 2014 08:34 Falling wrote: I'm not sure I agree with that, well maybe in SC2 I could. But what makes those units unique is not only look and lore, but also how they handle when you micro them. How quickly can you start and stop them between firing, what sort of unit vs unit can you attack-retreat vs spread out and move in. Microbility is what differentiates them (or lackthereof.) Now if you are talking about Age II or Warcraft II, then yes for the most part the unit differences were largely cosmetic, excluding spells. On June 03 2014 09:05 LaLuSh wrote: BigJ is not a big believer when it comes to micro features. You could provide him with a list of differences: size, speed, turn rate, damage, rate of attack, damage point ("frontswing duration"), turret-based (goliath, immortal,tank) vs non turret bases units (the rest); even within the subgroup of turret-based units you will find variations in yaw (allowed rotation around the vertical axis -- Goliaths can only rotate 180 degrees); you will find turrets which track while moving (BW) whereas others follow the direction of movement (SC2). Some of these he actually mentions (they fall under the definition of "stats"). I'd say there are plenty of real differences there still. But what do I know I just post brood war elitist comments everywhere. I'm a huge beliefer of micro features*. And I totally agree that they handle differently if you play at a certain level. I wrote that post from my phone, so I couldn't provide more detail (and don't know if I would have): A lot of those micro features are mere stats, like damage point. Other reasons are often balance differences that only show in relation to each other, like range and speed, again stats. Or things like turning rates and acceleration. I guess turret behaviors aren't stats per se, but largely replaceable by turning rates and damage points. But the real question is: who microes? Hardly anyone who play this game casually hardly ever get to know those features. Yet, starting day1 of playing, he or she will understand that a roach isn't a goliath isn't a dragoon. That is because of looks and lore and that's why I say: 90%. The other 10% will start asking questions ("why is this unit so bad at microing"; "give us less damage point"; "make this unit glide instead of running"...). But unless you really just repaint the exact same unit over and over again - a 2-in-1 unit plays largely differently in terms of gameplay than its counterpart - the units will distinguish themselves hugely. Especially when the one is combinable with a roach and the other with a medivac. Meanwhile I can play SubCom all I want, but since all my units apart from the special superunits are tiny dots, all the races feel the same to me, apart from their special superunits. *about micro features: those examples like turret behaviors or gliding are tiny in my opinion. I believe the vast potential of micro lies within changing up the basic unit control. In shooters and RPGs you can run and walk, jump and crawl and use various weapons that you usually all have to aim with. I believe simulating such kinds of body capabilities would lead to massively more microable units. Kiting, splitting, aiming, dodging, interesting special abilities, comboing attacks&abilites are the impressive features of a game. Meanwhile the difference between a 180° turret, a 360° turret and an insta-turning soldier is more often than not hidden and those units will in most skirmishes and for most players just be units that attack their targets from a certain range upon giving a command. I believe those features would shine much more if you'd combine them somehow with other features of the same unit. | ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
On May 23 2014 06:48 jeeeeohn wrote: I think you just want Warcraft 3. Yeah Warcraft 3 with even more simplified economy/buildings. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On June 03 2014 22:54 urboss wrote: Yeah Warcraft 3 with even more simplified economy/buildings. That sounds absolutely lame to me, but hey if the mass audience would like it i think i could get used to that too^^ | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On June 03 2014 22:54 urboss wrote: Yeah Warcraft 3 with even more simplified economy/buildings. No we just want the high microability potential of BW with interesting lore behind it. That's all really, not that difficult to implement if you are thinking of designing a sequel. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On June 04 2014 02:03 Xiphos wrote: No we just want the high microability potential of BW with interesting lore behind it. That's all really, not that difficult to implement if you are thinking of designing a sequel. That isn't the point of this thread at all though. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On June 04 2014 02:08 The_Red_Viper wrote: That isn't the point of this thread at all though. It is what the players and the audience want in a RTS game so this is absolutely relevant. | ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
The use of tactics can be enforced by optimizing - unit design - terrain design - game mechanics (game speed, unit control, clumping) | ||
| ||
