|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
The expansions are exactly what I had in mind - selfdefending and without worker build up. Respawn mechanics to make combacks possible... They are in my head. :O
Make everything apart from combats "free" and "attention free". Sounds amazing.
|
Northern Ireland26492 Posts
Sounds less deep to me, interesting dev blog for sure though
|
On June 04 2014 23:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
Sounds less deep to me, interesting dev blog for sure though
na, they are just removing things that aren't deep to begin with.
The continous building of workers is a nobrainer.
The removal of rushes that rely on your opponent not having a possibility to scout them doesn't decrease the depth of the game. Just removes the parts of the game that you don't have any influence over to begin with.
Getting your investment back is just the same as not getting your investment back and has its own depths.
|
|
|
On June 04 2014 23:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 23:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
Sounds less deep to me, interesting dev blog for sure though na, they are just removing things that aren't deep to begin with. The continous building of workers is a nobrainer. The removal of rushes that rely on your opponent not having a possibility to scout them doesn't decrease the depth of the game. Just removes the parts of the game that you don't have any influence over to begin with. Getting your investment back is just the same as not getting your investment back and has its own depths.
Apart from worker production can be stopped to make way for all ins, investing resources purely into army instead of furthering economy, choices. I also do not see the problem with rushes in pro play. A standard build is usually designed to be able to deal with anything, but if a player wants to coin flip that his opponent is going to open greedy on a certain map and is going to attempt to punish such an opening then that seems healthy for an RTS game to me.
|
On June 04 2014 23:31 jeeeeohn wrote:
What Starcraft 2 needs to become a widely accepted "sport" is, as many people have mentioned, better interactivity. As is, the only people that give a damn about watching SC2 are the people who play SC2. How can we present it in a way to the uninformed, unwashed masses that's exciting AND intuitive? In other words, how do we make it easier to understand?
Why not give key information in the border margins of the stream? Like let's say Artosis is talking about a siege tank and someone is like "what does that do?" and then they see a description of a siege tank with it's tech requirements etc. pop up in the border. They read it real quick and then boom, that's information they won't have to re-learn for a while, and it doesn't distract from the game.
I think OGN tried out some of those ideas when they were in the full swing of switching to sc2. They had little clips detailing new sc2 units during commercial breaks, and iirc they had a few popups talking about new units as well.
Too bad it seems they‘ve completely dropped sc2. They had decent production value imo, even if it seemed a bit halfhearted compared to their bw stuff.
|
On June 04 2014 23:34 Big J wrote:The expansions are exactly what I had in mind - selfdefending and without worker build up. Respawn mechanics to make combacks possible... They are in my head. :O Make everything apart from combats "free" and "attention free". Sounds amazing.
I agree with this. I don't believe that games needs to be restricted to the classical RTS principles. That's not what makes me enjoy Sc2. Rather, I want games that have the highest ratio of "funmicro battles"/minutes played.
The classical RTS-genere has many troubles incentivizing that type of gameplay. It often times needs to be 10 minute-build up phase and when you try to introduce strong early game units (such as Reapers in WOL) it often times ends up being extremely unforgiving/unfun to play against.
Finding a way to create lots of small battles while maintaining a high defenders advantage --> Awesome.
So it seems to me that Artillery just tries to understands the variables which makes for fun gameplay, and then looks at different methods that it can be accomplished rather than being restricted by "irrational" rules.
|
On June 04 2014 22:55 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 22:34 Velr wrote:On June 04 2014 22:31 Big J wrote:On June 04 2014 22:22 Green_25 wrote:
I'm not really interested in starcraft becoming a moba/rts hybrid, I mean whats the point? Its just going to pale in comparison to league or Dota.
To be honest, I think traditional vanilla starcraft is WAY easier to watch than a moba if you aren't familiar with either genre, in terms of appreciating the skill of the players. I guess when I think about creating an esport I try to compare it as much to 'real' sport as possible, I think the starcraft model is better in that regard. Well, league is decent, but I never know wtf is going on in Dota.
Guess what I'm saying is I watch starcraft as an esport not to see deep strategic mindgames, but to see high level mechanical skill play out on even ground. Like a 'real' sport. At the end of the day in one game you are controlling 100 units in the other you are controlling one. Mobas are definitely more fun to play though.
I like the idea of a 4th race being added. Would be crazy challenging to do, but who knows.
Also can't believe people are mentioning Hearthstone in this thread. I love hearthstone, but it is not, and never will be, an 'esport'. hearthstone is an esport already. No clue why you think it wouldn't be. Because its a card game.. duh.. The fact that you can earn money with it, the better player tends to win and people like to watch it does not make something a sport… As far as i know Poker and various other « rl-life » card games aren’t considered sports too… Chess is considered a sport, but that's not even the question. We are talking esports, which is not the same as sports for several reasons. And as far as I know basically every PC Game that is being played competitively by professionals is considered an esport. That's the only somewhat official criterium I know about.
I don't know if chess is considered a sport, I certainly wouldn''t call it one, though it has more cause to be one than a card game.
For me sport suggests some kind of physical or mechanical skill being on display, chess at least is about raw mathematical skill which can be quantified. Card games like poker or hearthstone are amazing but are not sports in my (and many other peoples) opinion.
This is coming from someone who has played a shitload of hearthstone and played poker semi-professionally for five years. I can quantify someones mechanical skill in starcraft in terms of being really fast and multitasking, I can't quantify it in poker or hearthstone since the 'skill' ceiling is relatively low.
|
On June 05 2014 00:27 HN_KrO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 23:45 Big J wrote:On June 04 2014 23:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
Sounds less deep to me, interesting dev blog for sure though na, they are just removing things that aren't deep to begin with. The continous building of workers is a nobrainer. The removal of rushes that rely on your opponent not having a possibility to scout them doesn't decrease the depth of the game. Just removes the parts of the game that you don't have any influence over to begin with. Getting your investment back is just the same as not getting your investment back and has its own depths. Apart from worker production can be stopped to make way for all ins, investing resources purely into army instead of furthering economy, choices. I also do not see the problem with rushes in pro play. A standard build is usually designed to be able to deal with anything, but if a player wants to coin flip that his opponent is going to open greedy on a certain map and is going to attempt to punish such an opening then that seems healthy for an RTS game to me.
Yeah, there is always tiny little details that you lose compared to another game if you do anything different. You can always argue these things and you can always argue how current RTS games don't have the depth they should have because they lack X or Y that some other game had and adds a tiny little decision that you could make.
And for coin flips, nope, it's not healthy for a game that claims to be about skill, if you can coin flip anything at all. As simple as that. Everything should be information based and all information should always be accessible with reasonable expenses.
|
On June 04 2014 03:45 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 03:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 04 2014 03:12 Xiphos wrote:On June 04 2014 02:32 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 04 2014 02:20 Xiphos wrote:On June 04 2014 02:08 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 04 2014 02:03 Xiphos wrote:On June 03 2014 22:54 urboss wrote:On May 23 2014 06:48 jeeeeohn wrote:
I think you just want Warcraft 3. 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. 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. It is what you want in a RTS game aka it is what teamliquid wants in a rts game (and even that is not 100% true) Truth is that the mass audience doesn't see any difference between BW and sc2, if anything they say it is too similar. So no, a BW2 wouldn't be the next big thing (this is also a reason why starbow fails so miserably) StarBow didn't fail, Tasteless and Artosis have been playing StarBow more than SC2. Its that Blizzard doesn't give it support and I could imagine that Tasteless and Artosis don't want to badmouth SC2 in favor of StarBow because of their contract's obligations. In the future, when Blizzard stopped their "10 years esport experiment" with SC2, I can almost be certain that with the current patching decision and unit's design, people will look for alternative mods to challenge themselves and StarBow will be right there waiting for them. Plus many pros have already complimented on StarBow's strong point and it is they appreciate StarBow's micro potentials. So a game funded on BW principle will thrive as long as Blizzard puts in the spotlight. I think your reasoning why starbow will succeed in the end is nothing more than wishful thinking tbh. Sure, for the more "hardcore" rts players it is worth a look and fun to play, but that doesn't mean that the more "casual" audience cares at all. Let's be real for a moment, when somebody with no real knowledge watches sc2 and then starbow, he will see basically the same thing (even though you think one is vastly superior, which is not important for my argument though). He sees armies fighting against each other and it is hard to grasp for him who is playing better till he knows the end result of the game. That is the biggest strength of mobas imo, you have a lot of indicators of the "skill" of these players, you see kills, cs, a lot of teamfights with obvious outcomes , etc I mean in the end it comes down to what someone expects from the next "big rts", i just don't see it happening with the basic stuff a lot of people on TL love. They'll see more drawn out battles, more activities around the map, more skirmishes, more harassment. Just plain more actions all around. And I could argue the same about BW, why did it thrive despite being a hard game to play? Because the game had high microability units that people can just make and "specialize" with it because it is challenging to play and challenges = enjoyment of achievement = fun.
BW didn't thrive because it had high microability. BW thrived because there were almost no other good online options to play with friends. BW took a massive hit when EverQuest came out...literally MASSIVE. Popular BW channels went way down in the number of people in them.
BW was almost the only game in town until EQ came out. BW as a game wasn't amazingly great, wasn't balanced, had terrible maps, and so forth. If it was released today with just updated graphics next to StarCraft 2 it wouldn't even have 10% the popularity. For its time though...there was nothing else.
The success of StarCraft was due to Battle.net. The success was battle.net. The success wasn't even the game itself. There was an interview with Sosowac around season 5 where he talks about his conversation with Gadianton about Broodwar and they shared the opinion that they didn't actually enjoy the game, but just liked the competition. Comparing them to StarCraft Wings of Liberty players...they would be compared to players that quit long before HotS came out and they were among the best foreign players produced. The game was good, gave options, but the crowd left after playing it for a year to 2 years and moved on to other games. Which is pretty normal when you think about it.
|
On June 04 2014 22:22 Green_25 wrote:
Guess what I'm saying is I watch starcraft as an esport not to see deep strategic mindgames, but to see high level mechanical skill play out on even ground.
We are opposites, i prefer the strategy and mindgames than fast finger coordination. And Dota give me plenty of both.
|
About Project Atlas from Artillery Games:
Did anyone else get a beta invite? I was semi-randomly selected for an invite, and was told the beta would be in a month or so.
|
Starcraft is already a game with no economic aspect to it at all and people are actually asking to dumb down from that even? Hehehe come on guys real men enjoy managing an economy. I'm turned off by what Artillery said however since I haven't played the game I'm going to reserve my actual opinions until then.
Scumbags continue milking the largest amount of money possible from previously well made titles. AoC HD was a mess (not sure of right now), AoM EE is currently a mess. It's silly.
|
Well, since Microsoft is making good money from the renewed Steam titles, they are probably considering building a new RTS title themselves.
|
If and if only they develop a new RTS that isn't shit like the-RTS-which-shall-not-be-named will I take back my calling them scumbags.
|
On June 05 2014 03:26 TMG26 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 22:22 Green_25 wrote:
Guess what I'm saying is I watch starcraft as an esport not to see deep strategic mindgames, but to see high level mechanical skill play out on even ground. We are opposites, i prefer the strategy and mindgames than fast finger coordination. And Dota give me plenty of both.
I appreciate that, I just think there's room for both. I don't see any point in Starcraft becoming Dota-lite. They should emphasize the aspects which make it stand out as an rts, not dumb it down to become a mediocre less successful version of whats already out there.
Not that the strategic element should be removed, but it should come second to the mechanical 'skill' part.
|
On June 05 2014 06:19 Green_25 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 03:26 TMG26 wrote:On June 04 2014 22:22 Green_25 wrote:
Guess what I'm saying is I watch starcraft as an esport not to see deep strategic mindgames, but to see high level mechanical skill play out on even ground. We are opposites, i prefer the strategy and mindgames than fast finger coordination. And Dota give me plenty of both. I appreciate that, I just think there's room for both. I don't see any point in Starcraft becoming Dota-lite. They should emphasize the aspects which make it stand out as an rts, not dumb it down to become a mediocre less successful version of whats already out there. Not that the strategic element should be removed, but it should come second to the mechanical 'skill' part.
I think it should come first, but i agree that RTS shouldn't become Dota-like.
There is one thing that i love in dota, it's the draft. A RTS that could have some sort of drafting done right instead of pick race would be interesting. And it would make patching new stuff in easier, since you can always draft around it.
|
I enjoy strategy games but I adore MOBAs. That being said I completely hate Starcraft II (I believe it's a pretty badly made game - unfun for most part). From the RTS genre I like Brood War, Warcraft III (my favorite), Age of Mythology and CnC3 Kane's Wrath.
Problems of RTS are as following:
- too much wasted time / repetitive bullshit that can lose you the game in 90% of the situations (like build orders, economy management, units dying too fast when you are not looking)
- this makes the game too hard / stressful / tyring for a person looking to have fun
Problems of Stacraft II in particular:
- too focused on one big battle / deathballs
- fights are too quick game is too fast
Overall RTSs are too hard. In 2010 decade, people are already good at most games, resources are online out-there, one average intelligent player will understand the basics quickly and end up to a point where he needs to be competitive. And that's where the problematic of APM, build orders, macro and all that stuff becomes relevant way to fast.
In 1990s nobody knew/ cared about APM and stuff, eveyrone just made tanks / carriers / whatever fun units and fought with them and the strategy part came from hiding that base, or building that unit or that counter. It never came in the form of "I can manage my economy better than you". Again this, speaking from the masses point of view. What's appealing to a casual player in an RTS is building multiple armies and fighting with them. What's not fun is when masses realize that RTSs arent' actually about the fights but mostly about how to optimally build the armies.
Mobas are about the fights however. They just give that feeling of having fun, doing whatever and still being next to competitive. I'm sure as hell not dendi, but I can pick a hero, hit some creeps, get an item and own. And if I lose, then it's a gradual game, where I put up a fight and not lose because I mis-microed my zerglings into tanks because I had to inject my hatchery... Also, a session of Moba gaming won't damage your wrists/hands/eyes as much as RTS will.
That's my opinion on why RTSs are dissapearing.
|
On June 05 2014 07:29 Kranyum wrote:
I enjoy strategy games but I adore MOBAs. That being said I completely hate Starcraft II (I believe it's a pretty badly made game - unfun for most part). From the RTS genre I like Brood War, Warcraft III (my favorite), Age of Mythology and CnC3 Kane's Wrath.
Problems of RTS are as following:
- too much wasted time / repetitive bullshit that can lose you the game in 90% of the situations (like build orders, economy management, units dying too fast when you are not looking)
- this makes the game too hard / stressful / tyring for a person looking to have fun
Problems of Stacraft II in particular:
- too focused on one big battle / deathballs
- fights are too quick game is too fast
Overall RTSs are too hard. In 2010 decade, people are already good at most games, resources are online out-there, one average intelligent player will understand the basics quickly and end up to a point where he needs to be competitive. And that's where the problematic of APM, build orders, macro and all that stuff becomes relevant way to fast.
In 1990s nobody knew/ cared about APM and stuff, eveyrone just made tanks / carriers / whatever fun units and fought with them and the strategy part came from hiding that base, or building that unit or that counter. It never came in the form of "I can manage my economy better than you". Again this, speaking from the masses point of view. What's appealing to a casual player in an RTS is building multiple armies and fighting with them. What's not fun is when masses realize that RTSs arent' actually about the fights but mostly about how to optimally build the armies.
Mobas are about the fights however. They just give that feeling of having fun, doing whatever and still being next to competitive. I'm sure as hell not dendi, but I can pick a hero, hit some creeps, get an item and own. And if I lose, then it's a gradual game, where I put up a fight and not lose because I mis-microed my zerglings into tanks because I had to inject my hatchery... Also, a session of Moba gaming won't damage your wrists/hands/eyes as much as RTS will.
That's my opinion on why RTSs are dissapearing.
Are you sure you played broodwar? It sounds like you would've hated it.
To be honest, this style of rts has never been that popular outside of Korea. Yeah it got big initially after sc2 release due to hype, but this type of game isn't for everyone. Its a niche market. I love base building and econ management, I get why others would find it frustrating/time wasting. But thats fine, you play your game and I'll play mine, everyone's happy.
|
On June 05 2014 09:21 Green_25 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 07:29 Kranyum wrote:
I enjoy strategy games but I adore MOBAs. That being said I completely hate Starcraft II (I believe it's a pretty badly made game - unfun for most part). From the RTS genre I like Brood War, Warcraft III (my favorite), Age of Mythology and CnC3 Kane's Wrath.
Problems of RTS are as following:
- too much wasted time / repetitive bullshit that can lose you the game in 90% of the situations (like build orders, economy management, units dying too fast when you are not looking)
- this makes the game too hard / stressful / tyring for a person looking to have fun
Problems of Stacraft II in particular:
- too focused on one big battle / deathballs
- fights are too quick game is too fast
Overall RTSs are too hard. In 2010 decade, people are already good at most games, resources are online out-there, one average intelligent player will understand the basics quickly and end up to a point where he needs to be competitive. And that's where the problematic of APM, build orders, macro and all that stuff becomes relevant way to fast.
In 1990s nobody knew/ cared about APM and stuff, eveyrone just made tanks / carriers / whatever fun units and fought with them and the strategy part came from hiding that base, or building that unit or that counter. It never came in the form of "I can manage my economy better than you". Again this, speaking from the masses point of view. What's appealing to a casual player in an RTS is building multiple armies and fighting with them. What's not fun is when masses realize that RTSs arent' actually about the fights but mostly about how to optimally build the armies.
Mobas are about the fights however. They just give that feeling of having fun, doing whatever and still being next to competitive. I'm sure as hell not dendi, but I can pick a hero, hit some creeps, get an item and own. And if I lose, then it's a gradual game, where I put up a fight and not lose because I mis-microed my zerglings into tanks because I had to inject my hatchery... Also, a session of Moba gaming won't damage your wrists/hands/eyes as much as RTS will.
That's my opinion on why RTSs are dissapearing.
Are you sure you played broodwar? It sounds like you would've hated it. To be honest, this style of rts has never been that popular outside of Korea. Yeah it got big initially after sc2 release due to hype, but this type of game isn't for everyone. Its a niche market. I love base building and econ management, I get why others would find it frustrating/time wasting. But thats fine, you play your game and I'll play mine, everyone's happy.
Nah, moneymaps and fastestmap ever were popular for a reason, and it wasn't due to the good design of BW units nor their microbility.
It was easy econ, a single defensive choke, no need to expand, and more room than you'll ever need for infrastructure. They even put the mineral patch right next to the command center to reduce mining travel time to 0. That is what the majority of BW fans played more than any other map--if you looked at Bnet 1.0 that is. That is the "heyday" of early 2000's RTS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
