EPT
The future of RTS games - Page 59
| 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. | ||
|
VinceNet
Switzerland5 Posts
| ||
|
TMG26
Portugal2017 Posts
On June 14 2014 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote: Protoss have an early planetary fortress, Terrans have almost free defensive structures, and zerg creep is terrain advantage. What you're asking for is already in SC2. Almost free. Not a given. The only given defenders' advantage is the choke points. In Dota you have booth choke point, High Ground and a Tower. A bigger and free for everyone advantage. What you are talking about, compares to being able to insta kill the creep wave to make the push harder, it's almost free, and pretty much every team has it, but it's not free, that makes a difference. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 15 2014 01:45 TMG26 wrote: Almost free. Not a given. The only given defenders' advantage is the choke points. In Dota you have booth choke point, High Ground and a Tower. A bigger and free for everyone advantage. What you are talking about, compares to being able to insta kill the creep wave to make the push harder, it's almost free, and pretty much every team has it, but it's not free, that makes a difference. And what I'm telling you is that much like AoE, WC3, and BW, SC2 has a lot of defenders advantages that attackers cannot ignore. You don't just walk onto creep. You don't run face first into a Photon Overcharge And Terran CAN get 75% of their money back from Bunkers while having the only defensive structure in the game that PROVIDES its own supply. You don't charge at a protoss army near walls/cliffs/terrain because forcefields completing and creating choke points allows Protoss to use terrain advantages to win fights. The same goes with Zerg. Terran is literally a race that can pick up its base and run away to start over somewhere else if it ever started losing too much ground or its army was caught out of position. SC2 has a LOT of defenders advantage and makes use of terrain very very dynamically. What you're wanting is not the implementation of terrain use, you're asking for a specific type of terrain use. Which is fine, but don't be dishonest in the way you discuss it. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
High ground advantage will ALWAYS be there. But however these: "You don't just walk onto creep. You don't run face first into a Photon Overcharge And Terran CAN get 75% of their money back from Bunkers while having the only defensive structure in the game that PROVIDES its own supply." Aren't always there. That's akin to saying "Oh don't bang your army against the opposition with superior defensive units, you may get slaughtered." Creep + Photon Overcharge + Salvage can be utilized for phenomenon effect but those takes more time to accumulate for their maximum effect while BW's high ground mechanics provides more "immediate" effect. So there should definitely be a distinction b/w the terminology. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 15 2014 10:00 Xiphos wrote: You guys are confusing b/w static defensive mechanisms and dynamic ones. High ground advantage will ALWAYS be there. But however these: "You don't just walk onto creep. You don't run face first into a Photon Overcharge And Terran CAN get 75% of their money back from Bunkers while having the only defensive structure in the game that PROVIDES its own supply." Aren't always there. That's akin to saying "Oh don't bang your army against the opposition with superior defensive units, you may get slaughtered." Creep + Photon Overcharge + Salvage can be utilized for phenomenon effect but those takes more time to accumulate for their maximum effect while BW's high ground mechanics provides more "immediate" effect. So there should definitely be a distinction b/w the terminology. Being that the discussion string began by talking about defender's advantage, mentioning both terrain as well as buildings (WC3, AoE, etc..) the discussion was a lot broader than just terrain advantage. | ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
| ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
| ||
|
Roswell
United States250 Posts
| ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
Definitions change over time and between games so there really isn't a reason to get hung up on it. | ||
|
Gyro_SC2
Canada540 Posts
The metagame in sc2 is just too slow to change. It's just boring to see that after 4 years people still do the same all in.In league of legends we got a new hero every two month and the metagame is always changing. -and make the game free. | ||
|
Synche
United States1345 Posts
To be honest I really don't see it as an RTS, MOBA, Fighting Game, FPS issue. It's a competitive game issue at this point. Are you willing to make the game competitive? Some companies don't want to compromise on that issue, or are willing to compromise far less than others. I think the companies that are willing to make that sacrifice and fully embrace creating the game from the ground up for competitive play will succeed in drawing an audience. | ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
The only reason Blizzard needs to pay close attention to balance issues is because it uses three distinct races. No one whines about balance in chess or poker. I'm perfectly OK with having a "Terran Only" RTS if it kicks ass otherwise! | ||
|
.nix
France23 Posts
Directly from Blizzard client for added efficiency Just my 2cents | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On June 15 2014 20:02 .nix wrote: A good way to increase tournament popularity, revenues, and overall hype could be to allow people to bet money on pro matches. Directly from Blizzard client for added efficiency Just my 2cents Cannot happen. As far as I know, USA has a ban on gambling, and you know where Blizzard is located. | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
No spins you do can change this. Multi-tasking is a chore, macro is a chore. Nature of RTS game have steep learning curve, and as such can never capture large mass audience. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On June 15 2014 18:53 urboss wrote: Any multiplayer game is "competitive". The only reason Blizzard needs to pay close attention to balance issues is because it uses three distinct races. No one whines about balance in chess or poker. I'm perfectly OK with having a "Terran Only" RTS if it kicks ass otherwise! No one whines about balance in chess, because we know no one can change the game for everyone. So chess players accept that their game will be imbalanced forever. Just as everyone accepts that card games are heavily based on luck. The internet though is different, especially if someone gave into it at one point already lol. Thats why some try to mention their wants at every chance they get, so someone in charge might think many want it. Not sure why some want a more casual always changing rts, the competition you would face would be so much tougher. I feel sorry for Dota2 as the only things I see from LoL and Dota2 are twitch viewer numbers. But no need to jump in I know Dota2 is fine. | ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
On June 15 2014 21:45 FeyFey wrote: The internet though is different, especially if someone gave into it at one point already lol. Thats why some try to mention their wants at every chance they get, so someone in charge might think many want it. Not sure why some want a more casual always changing rts, the competition you would face would be so much tougher. I feel sorry for Dota2 as the only things I see from LoL and Dota2 are twitch viewer numbers. But no need to jump in I know Dota2 is fine. The whole reason behind making RTS more casual is that they would cease to exist in the mass market otherwise. On June 15 2014 21:45 FeyFey wrote: No one whines about balance in chess, because we know no one can change the game for everyone. So chess players accept that their game will be imbalanced forever. Just as everyone accepts that card games are heavily based on luck. Card games are based on luck, that doesn't mean that they are imbalanced. The luck can hit anyone. If you mean White's advantage in chess, the way they solve this is by having players play BOTH White and Black in alternation. Similarly, there would be no balance whine in SC2 if players were required to play ALL 3 races in each matchup. So if Taeja meets MC at Dreamhack in the quarter final, this is how it would look like: Game 1: MC chooses Protoss, Taeja chooses Terrain Game 2: MC chooses Zerg, Taeja chooses Protoss Game 3: MC takes Terrain, Taeja takes Zerg If Blizzard would have enforced this from the beginning, there would never have been any balance issues. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On June 15 2014 21:15 iky43210 wrote: Traditional RTS is a thing in the past. It is becoming more niche since early 2000s No spins you do can change this. Multi-tasking is a chore, macro is a chore. Nature of RTS game have steep learning curve, and as such can never capture large mass audience. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On June 15 2014 12:57 urboss wrote: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/09/abatron-fps-rts/ Looks absolutely awful, but I like the concept. | ||
| ||
