EPTThe future of RTS games - Page 69
| 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. | ||
|
TMG26
Portugal2017 Posts
| ||
|
spajn
34 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 25 2014 19:03 spajn wrote: The super fast micro battles at late game with minimal micro potential produces so much anxiety it is impossible for casuals to enjoy the game is THE biggest reason starcraft2 has a small population. Casauls like to micro because it is what anyone can do and you instantly see the results of your actions but there are barely any micro to be had in sc2... its most about strategic decisions which casuals dont give a damn about. I don't agree with that at all. There are tons of casual players that don't want to micro and just want to build up an army and see it clash. It's not a miracle that Desert Strike, Nexus Wars and similar Mods are the most played arcade games. I think people don't mind either, micro or strategic decisions. What everyone likes is when their stuff kills the stuff of the other guy and what they don't like is when they feel helpless and overwhelmed with tasks in too little time. How you get to such a game doesn't actually matter too much for most of the players I think. Personally I think the best way to reach this is by reducing/cutting repetetive tasks that tax you without directly leading to "my stuff interacts with your stuff". Meanwhile greatly, greatly, greatly improve the depth and ease the control of "my stuff interacts with your stuff". | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On November 25 2014 19:03 spajn wrote: The super fast micro battles at late game with minimal micro potential produces so much anxiety it is impossible for casuals to enjoy the game is THE biggest reason starcraft2 has a small population. Casauls like to micro because it is what anyone can do and you instantly see the results of your actions but there are barely any micro to be had in sc2... its most about strategic decisions which casuals dont give a damn about. As a casual player I find the game to be way too fast to micro. I do not have the speed to cycle between three to six unit times so I can cast the spell I want, while simultaneously splitting M&M, making sure my casters are not blocked off by other units and to keep up unit production. I just cannot do that. I have never really liked spells on units, which is why I always prefered Age of Empires or Command and Conquer over Blizzard RTS games. I want to win because I outthought my opponent, not because I can click faster than he does. | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
I want to win because I outthought my opponent, not because I can click faster than he does. lol | ||
|
FrozenProbe
Italy276 Posts
I want to win because I outthought my opponent, not because I can click faster than he does. So, play a turn-based strategy game.. something like a little game like Chess should be better for you | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
The frantic macroing is fun in some parts but also just frustating. If i want the strategy itch i play boardgames nowadays, if i want the time element in it a MOBA suits me better. I am a bit surprised how RTS'es which are more fight oriented went away mostly, like the squad based ones or stuff like red alert which had minimal macroing. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On November 25 2014 20:35 FrozenProbe wrote: So, play a turn-based strategy game.. something like a little game like Chess should be better for you Or any non-blizzard RTS will do. No need to be all hardcore here, I don't think I'm the only one who likes it when games are decided on whether or not I managed to cast an EMP in that one split second. Blizzard RTS are extremely light on strategy and tactics, they're all about minute unit control. | ||
|
fethers
United States19 Posts
On November 25 2014 19:03 spajn wrote: The super fast micro battles at late game with minimal micro potential produces so much anxiety it is impossible for casuals to enjoy the game is THE biggest reason starcraft2 has a small population. Casauls like to micro because it is what anyone can do and you instantly see the results of your actions but there are barely any micro to be had in sc2... its most about strategic decisions which casuals dont give a damn about. So here is an example. I'm a gold player, ZvP and I have a good sized Roach Hydra army. I made 5 Vipers, charged them up and watched them all melt in a quarter second because I wasn't fast enough to get my abducts off. | ||
|
clickrush
Switzerland3257 Posts
On November 25 2014 20:44 maartendq wrote: Or any non-blizzard RTS will do. No need to be all hardcore here, I don't think I'm the only one who likes it when games are decided on whether or not I managed to cast an EMP in that one split second. Blizzard RTS are extremely light on strategy and tactics, they're all about minute unit control. I don't agree but can understand why you would think that though. If your mechanics don't allow you to think about what you are doing then it would seem that way. But the strategic and even more tactical depth of bw and sc2 is beyond everything I experienced in the RTS space, may that be Moba, RTT or cRTS. Theres nothing like starcraft. There's a reason why it remains the king of RTS. There are other RTS and RTTs which are really really good, such as CoH, Myth 2 (also from 1998, still played by a small community), Netstorm (1998, still played by a small community), DoW 2, Supreme Commander to name a few of the best. Those all have alot to show and even while some of them deserve much more attention than they get, they all have inherent flaws in one or the other area to be up there with starcraft. Some of them are mechanically demanding and some are not but when it comes down to strategical and tactical depth none of them surpass starcraft. | ||
|
derc
France126 Posts
I managed to reach diamond 1v1 in several season in early SC2, and master in 3v3, and i agree, those late game battle where you can't really micro your units are annoying. But the worst thing imo to make sc2 a more Casu game would have been to reduce the impact of timings and cheese. This is why i prefered 3v3 with randoms players, even if someone tries some cheese the team strategy has a bigger role and game are more back and forth than in 1v1 (speaking from plat-dia lvl) Don't get me wrong, i like SC2 the way it is now, i really like watching streams, i just can't find real fun playing it, especially not in 1v1. | ||
|
sharkyandgeorge
United Kingdom12 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19231 Posts
On November 25 2014 20:44 maartendq wrote: Or any non-blizzard RTS will do. No need to be all hardcore here, I don't think I'm the only one who likes it when games are decided on whether or not I managed to cast an EMP in that one split second. Blizzard RTS are extremely light on strategy and tactics, they're all about minute unit control. Brood war is the furthest thing from light on strategy. High mechanics are just another requirement to execute the best ones. However, flash was considered a low apm player and still was the most dominant. | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
On February 04 2015 09:08 BisuDagger wrote: Brood war is the furthest thing from light on strategy. High mechanics are just another requirement to execute the best ones. However, flash was considered a low apm player and still was the most dominant. Low apm in bw is what? 250? 200? Too much for a casual player, way too much | ||
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
On February 04 2015 09:16 SoSexy wrote: Low apm in bw is what? 250? 200? Too much for a casual player, way too much But if you're not going up against pro-level players, it's hardly necessary. It's really only once you get into the C- and higher range that you get players with that sort of apm and even still it's not entirely necessary- people like Bakuryu are known to be good players and yet low apm. But the game is still fun and lower apm and requires strategic thought at low levels. I was still trying to out-think my opponent, and figure out great places to drop back when I averaged 40-60 apm. The difference now is that I've gained a lot more strategical knowledge from experience and my 130 average apm allows me to execute the strategies better and still have a large army after doing a bunch of drops. But my old 60 apm self was definitely working out counter-strategies against my friends in LAN games. | ||
|
lestye
United States4163 Posts
On February 04 2015 09:37 Falling wrote: But if you're not going up against pro-level players, it's hardly necessary. It's really only once you get into the C- and higher range that you get players with that sort of apm and even still it's not entirely necessary- people like Bakuryu are known to be good players and yet low apm. But the game is still fun and lower apm and requires strategic thought at low levels. I was still trying to out-think my opponent, and figure out great places to drop back when I averaged 40-60 apm. The difference now is that I've gained a lot more strategical knowledge from experience and my 130 average apm allows me to execute the strategies better and still have a large army after doing a bunch of drops. But my old 60 apm self was definitely working out counter-strategies against my friends in LAN games. When I see these comments like, Starcraft has too much micro, and you need a million APM to win, its a clickfest, I think they just see videos of fast koreans and think those are the people beating them on ladder. I think for like 90% of the people who play the game, APM doesn't matter as much as they think it does in low skill levels. APM is just basically refinement to get small edges in engagements. These small edges matter more and more in higher skill levels, but if we're talking about the casual base it's overkill. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2627 Posts
On February 04 2015 09:16 SoSexy wrote: Low apm in bw is what? 250? 200? Too much for a casual player, way too much Measured in BW apm? you have to remember that BW apm looks higher than SC2 apm because BW used real time instead of blizzard time, the difference in apm isn't as high as most make it to be, in BW good multitask was harder to achieve because of the 12 unit group and the lack of multiple building selection, good army control and macro created high apm but having high apm doesn't mean you have good macro or army control. | ||
|
fruity.
England1711 Posts
Oh, and then a lot of the pro's end up with arm and wrist issues.. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
We need more RTS, that's the baseline. SC2 suffered from a lack of competition in my opinion, look at battlenet.20, people only put up with it because they loved RTS enough to ignore it... I hope there are still developers out there willing to fill the niches, because I want a true successor to broodwar that actually builds on it and makes an even BETTER rts (if that's even possible), but meanwhile I want there to be easier RTS too, if only for new players to use as a jumping off point. So more more more, please, because RTS is the most ballin genre out there and I love it to death. | ||
|
althaz
Australia1001 Posts
On November 25 2014 20:44 maartendq wrote: Or any non-blizzard RTS will do. No need to be all hardcore here, I don't think I'm the only one who likes it when games are decided on whether or not I managed to cast an EMP in that one split second. Blizzard RTS are extremely light on strategy and tactics, they're all about minute unit control. This comment is complete crap. Blizzard RTS titles aren't light on strategy, they are HEAVY on strategy and tactics, it's just that they are also heavier on implementation than some other RTS titles. IMO that's what makes them better: the game isn't just about pick the right thing, win; it's about pick the right thing or outplay your opponent. | ||
| ||
