EPTThe future of RTS games - Page 71
| 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. | ||
|
cabal]
Belgium37 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12498 Posts
The problem is the rts market is pretty damn small. There are all types of fps and different sub genre of fps because it is large enough to satisfy all groups of players. Same for action games etc But rts? Nope its just small and I don't think it's due to lack of attractive games like some would claim it to be. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5599 Posts
| ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On February 04 2015 17:47 L_Master wrote: Absolutely not. If two 40 apm guys play each other the one that makes the better strategic decisions is almost certain to come out the victor. What you're saying only holds if there is a large skill gap, in which case sure. I certainly could beat my casual friends with mass scouts in BW even if they tried to execute a proper build. But in that case I'm winning because my level of mechanical skill is so much greater than theirs it overwhelms better strategical decisions. If both players mechanics are similar, i.e. casual players competing against each other mechanics will not be a major player, strategy will, because their mechanical skill is equal (non existant?). Example: Perhaps the most obvious example would be cycling, which has a huge amount of tactical stuff involved in most races. Less fit people are also able to hang with more fit people because of drafting, so it isn't just the fittest person wins. Now at some level (analogous to a very large mechanical discrepancy) a fitter cyclist could ride away from someone even if they were drafting efficiently and positioning themselves well in the bunch. In other words, mechanics would override tactics/strategy. However, cycling tends to be done within categories and thus you are racing people of similar capability and able to enjoy the full range of tactics available to racing. Same goes for starcraft and playing people of similar rank/league/skill than you. This is where my opinion differs from yours. I find that superior strategical thinking should be able to trump superior mechanical skill. After all, we're talking about real time strategy games here, not real time micromanagement. This is the main reason why I don't play SC2 all that much anymore. I realised I am so preoccupied with micro and macro that I no longer have the time to think about strategy. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3449 Posts
| ||
|
Parcelleus
Australia1662 Posts
Title says "Future of RTS games", yet MOBAs are mentioned as some type of comparison. Not only that, but the 'bad' sub-heading for SC2 in OP says "Boring, repetitive phase of building stuff". It sounds like the OP has no concept of RTS at all. Instead , it sounds like he wants a MOBA game. Call the thread , "RTS and MOBAs , a discussion" , would make a lot more sense given the OP's conceptions. | ||
|
Valikyr
Sweden2653 Posts
| ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On February 04 2015 20:21 ejozl wrote: It's also real time and most of the strategy in sc2 is there because of this aspect. Attacking at multiple fronts, taking advantage of a busy opponent etc. Sure, but why does that need to happen at a breakneck speed? Age of Empires and C&C were also real-time but a lot more manageable in terms of gamespeed. | ||
|
KingAlphard
Italy1705 Posts
On February 04 2015 21:04 maartendq wrote: Sure, but why does that need to happen at a breakneck speed? Age of Empires and C&C were also real-time but a lot more manageable in terms of gamespeed. Why is the speed something bad? I find games like AOE boring because they're so slow, you play a game for more than a hour and it feels like you've done nothing. The speed element makes the games more thrilling and it highlights the ability of a player to make decisions in a very short period of time. | ||
|
Mikau
Netherlands1446 Posts
On February 04 2015 21:07 KingAlphard wrote: Why is the speed something bad? I find games like AOE boring because they're so slow, you play a game for more than a hour and it feels like you've done nothing. The speed element makes the games more thrilling and it highlights the ability of a player to make decisions in a very short period of time. That's what you and the dozen remaining BW/SC2 players think, but if we want the genre to be sustainable we have to find a middle ground that will attract casuals too. | ||
|
Bastinian
Serbia177 Posts
| ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On February 04 2015 21:20 Mikau wrote: That's what you and the dozen remaining BW/SC2 players think, but if we want the genre to be sustainable we have to find a middle ground that will attract casuals too. This actually makes me wonder. The Starcraft 2 Battle Reports by blizzard back in 2009-2010 were played at normal speed as opposed to 'faster', which is the standard now, if I recall correctly. Is there a chance that blizzard decided at the last-minute to increase the standard speed? Brood War is slow compared to SC2. Even Supreme Commander, that other RTS game popular with hardcore fans of the genre, plays at glacial speeds compared to SC2, with matches easily lasting over an hour. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
On February 04 2015 21:20 Mikau wrote: That's what you and the dozen remaining BW/SC2 players think, but if we want the genre to be sustainable we have to find a middle ground that will attract casuals too. The middle ground between MOBA's and RTS isn't reducing the speed. MOBA's are quite fast as well. Rather, it's getting rid of the macroelement and focusisng on microinteractions instead. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19295 Posts
On February 04 2015 20:01 maartendq wrote: This is where my opinion differs from yours. I find that superior strategical thinking should be able to trump superior mechanical skill. After all, we're talking about real time strategy games here, not real time micromanagement. This is the main reason why I don't play SC2 all that much anymore. I realised I am so preoccupied with micro and macro that I no longer have the time to think about strategy. So what you need as an RTS game where you command armies to fight, but then the fights are automated and you must watch and hope your composition is better. In this RTS you build buildings that auto create units unless you cancel autobuild. Units that engage and have abilities like infestors auto cast on enemies during battle. So the questions here is, how do you create an RTS that restricts user involvement in battles and focuses more on strategy, but isn't Nexus Wars? | ||
|
StreetWise
United States594 Posts
On May 14 2014 05:37 Cheren wrote: I think a WC4 would be much more successful than WC3, the modern audience is already very used to heroes in competitive games, that was a pretty new concept when WC3 came out. As someone who has gone back to WC3 from SC2 I agree that WC4 could be a great way to meet the requirements in the OP. As mentioned, WC3 was somewhat ahead of its time. The market is ready for this type of a game. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On February 04 2015 21:20 Mikau wrote: That's what you and the dozen remaining BW/SC2 players think, but if we want the genre to be sustainable we have to find a middle ground that will attract casuals too. "dozens of remaining BW players" you do know that fish has ~150 people in its ladder channels during peak hours and it's incredibly easy to find normal melee 1v1s on fighting spirit or 2v2s/3v3s/4v4s on super/hunters/fs/python right? even if you can't speak korean, iccup has tons of people to play with as well.. it's actually easier/faster to find a high level game of broodwar nowadays than it is to deal with HOTS' matchmaking fiasco. That said, rts doesn't need to be dumbed down for casuals, casuals will come an go as they please.. We can decrease gamespeed for them or let them play team melee, but look at what "casuals" and appealing to them did to starcraft 2... Where is it's longevity that everyone used to talk about since it appealed to a "much larger more mainstream" audience? We're not even to our 3rd iteration of it and HOTS and its legacy left such a sour taste in everyone's mouth that the game is basically dead compared to the competitive scene of BW... Take away blizzard's "esport" funding (which will inevitably happen when their "obligation" to sustain sc2's cometitive scene goes away in their minds) and you'll see just how dead the game is... I don't even hate SC2, but WoL was a much better game than hots.. edit~ i dont have a bone to chew with sc2 players, it's with sc2's shitty dev team that i don't like. starcraft's scene isn't dying, it's alive and well, the majority of them just don't have a game to play as a result of horrible design decisions. I'm sure if they were given a competent game with a new coat of polish they would come back from mobas and play the better rts instead. but i mean... do you really want chat channels? do you really want clans? do you really want to pay blizzard more money for cosmetics? do you really want custom leagues? do you really want in game tournament options? do you really want do not disturb? do you really want a client that doesnt bug the fuck out 24/7? do you really think swarm hosts are a problem? the list goes on and on and on. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On February 04 2015 23:30 StreetWise wrote: As someone who has gone back to WC3 from SC2 I agree that WC4 could be a great way to meet the requirements in the OP. As mentioned, WC3 was somewhat ahead of its time. The market is ready for this type of a game. Oh god pls no :/ I don't want an rts which is like a moba, NOOOOOOOOOO But i guess it would be better than no rts at all, haha | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On February 04 2015 23:38 Endymion wrote: "dozens of remaining BW players" you do know that fish has ~150 people in its ladder channels during peak hours and it's incredibly easy to find normal melee 1v1s on fighting spirit or 2v2s/3v3s/4v4s on super/hunters/fs/python right? even if you can't speak korean, iccup has tons of people to play with as well.. it's actually easier/faster to find a high level game of broodwar nowadays than it is to deal with HOTS' matchmaking fiasco. That said, rts doesn't need to be dumbed down for casuals, casuals will come an go as they please.. We can decrease gamespeed for them or let them play team melee, but look at what "casuals" and appealing to them did to starcraft 2... Where is it's longevity that everyone used to talk about since it appealed to a "much larger more mainstream" audience? We're not even to our 3rd iteration of it and HOTS and its legacy left such a sour taste in everyone's mouth that the game is basically dead compared to the competitive scene of BW... Take away blizzard's "esport" funding (which will inevitably happen when their "obligation" to sustain sc2's cometitive scene goes away in their minds) and you'll see just how dead the game is... I don't even hate SC2, but WoL was a much better game than hots.. I completely disagree. HotS is leaps and bounds ahead of WoL in terms of gameplay. The issue is that people like to turtle because its easier so people do it. The "casual" benefits of SC2 aren't at all Casual. The mechanical requirements of SC2, and the amount of focus someone needs to put into the games at all times is way higher than other "esport" titles. The people who play BW like it thats fine, but don't start the SC2 vs BW flame wars :/ The fact of the matter is SC2 came out 5 years ago almost. In that time A LOT has changed. LoL and other F2P games gained a lot of popularity and F2P actually became a justifiable business model. Cheap to play games like CS:GO which draw on people who play other FPS games are also growing in popularity, and generally big boxed games like SC2 are sold on their single player campaigns. Blizz is adding more for the casual player in sc2 with LotV than exists in any other iteration of StarCraft based on the current market. They are adding Archon mode which makes Micro/Macro a built in Matchmaking experience which the modern market really needs. Modern games all have matchmaking, and clicking one button just works better than the arcade. People say Blizz messed up UMS but honestly, maybe UMS is just an old relic that doesn't work in the modern market as it did in the past. We don't need UMS for DotA games in the next WarCraft because DotA and LoL are their own thing. Its easy to go out and get a F2P game thats been optimized and has a big community but hard to get a community going in a UMS map. Yeah people still play BW and WC3 UMS, but how many of those are new players entering vs. older players or nostalgia trippers who used to play them when UMS was in its heyday? When I speak to younger family members the closest thing I find to UMS is minecraft custom servers. Its an easily accessible popular game that runs on almost any hardware that lets you play custom games. But when I think about all the other custom modes of most other games, there is some sort of match making included in big titles. Add into this, most people who buy sc2 dont play the multiplayer 1v1 or even 2v2. If archon mode helps people have fun good. But they are adding single player type missions that are not part of the campaign. This might become a vehicle for continuous content - every month theres a new mini campaign of 2 -3 missions for example people will love it. I just hate when people shit on SC2 and say it has no longevity. I mean SC2 has a TON of events outside of WCS as well so no once Blizz leaves (if ever) its not dead. I think Blizz and the SC universe will be around for a very long time. I would be surprised to never see an SC3 as well since, its one of the few RTS out there and is by far the biggest and still sells EXTREMELY well as a box product for blizzard. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On February 04 2015 23:20 BisuDagger wrote: So what you need as an RTS game where you command armies to fight, but then the fights are automated and you must watch and hope your composition is better. In this RTS you build buildings that auto create units unless you cancel autobuild. Units that engage and have abilities like infestors auto cast on enemies during battle. So the questions here is, how do you create an RTS that restricts user involvement in battles and focuses more on strategy, but isn't Nexus Wars? What I want is an RTS where I can focus on the big picture stuff because the AI of my units is smart enough not to require constant babysitting. Casting of spells would not be automated, but preferably the game would not have the amount of spells SC2 has. I'm thinking about an advanced version of Supreme Commander including terrain advantages and differences, played on rather large maps. Or about a way better version of Total War's real-time battles. And it doesn't necessarily have to be an esports-minded title. Just something that's fun to play. | ||
| ||
