|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
On February 04 2015 23:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 23:30 StreetWise wrote:On May 14 2014 05:37 Cheren wrote:On May 14 2014 05:34 ShiaoPi wrote:
so you want Warcraft IV? :DDD 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. 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
WC3 is not a RTS that is like a MOBA, it's a RTS that has hero units (and I mean micro-able, interesting, balanced, who gains power over time, hero units, not MoCore/Mothership-like hero units). It's literally a genius concept : tried and true RTS mechanics (workers, ressources, buildings, support units,...), with an emphasis on some specific units (that evolve over time ; that is greatly lacking in SC2 imo) to make the fights more exciting, in-fight micro-centered and less "big red blob clashes with big blue blob. Laser and shots are exchanged. Big red blob disappears. Big blue blob disappears too".
|
On February 05 2015 00:03 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 23:38 Endymion wrote:On February 04 2015 21:20 Mikau wrote:On February 04 2015 21:07 KingAlphard wrote:On February 04 2015 21:04 maartendq wrote: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. 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. "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.
I don't see how HOTS is ahead of WoL in gameplay when you have MSC and swarmhosts, but I'm fine with writing that off to an opinion on my end.
And be sure, Blizzard isn't innovating or adding to the game with archon mode, they're reinstating a gamemode from 1998/1999 that they didn't have the insight to add at launch because reasons. Team melee has been around forever.. I don't know if UMS is dead as a genre or not, I was really just talking about the core melee experience, but we'll never know if sc2 ums is dead because it never lived... have you tried to use the arcade? it's an absolutely convoluted mess, I tried to use it and I couldn't figure out what to do (and i've used blizzard products forever, imagine a new user..).
and as I said in my edit, I don't want to flame sc2 players because I love all RTS, but I'll flame blizzard and sc2's dev team until the end of the day because of what they do/continue to not do with regard to sc2
|
On February 05 2015 00:25 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 23:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 04 2015 23:30 StreetWise wrote:On May 14 2014 05:37 Cheren wrote:On May 14 2014 05:34 ShiaoPi wrote:
so you want Warcraft IV? :DDD 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. 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 WC3 is not a RTS that is like a MOBA, it's a RTS that has hero units (and I mean micro-able, interesting, balanced, who gains power over time, hero units, not MoCore/Mothership-like hero units). It's literally a genius concept : tried and true RTS mechanics (workers, ressources, buildings, support units,...), with an emphasis on some specific units (that evolve over time ; that is greatly lacking in SC2 imo) to make the fights more exciting, in-fight micro-centered and less "big red blob clashes with big blue blob. Laser and shots are exchanged. Big red blob disappears. Big blue blob disappears too".
The blob problem imo is due to the fact it's the easiest thing to do in sc2. It appears only in certain match ups nowadays at pro lvl but on the ladder on the other end...
|
On February 05 2015 00:27 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 00:25 OtherWorld wrote:On February 04 2015 23:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 04 2015 23:30 StreetWise wrote:On May 14 2014 05:37 Cheren wrote:On May 14 2014 05:34 ShiaoPi wrote:
so you want Warcraft IV? :DDD 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. 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 WC3 is not a RTS that is like a MOBA, it's a RTS that has hero units (and I mean micro-able, interesting, balanced, who gains power over time, hero units, not MoCore/Mothership-like hero units). It's literally a genius concept : tried and true RTS mechanics (workers, ressources, buildings, support units,...), with an emphasis on some specific units (that evolve over time ; that is greatly lacking in SC2 imo) to make the fights more exciting, in-fight micro-centered and less "big red blob clashes with big blue blob. Laser and shots are exchanged. Big red blob disappears. Big blue blob disappears too". The blob problem imo is due to the fact it's the easiest thing to do in sc2. It appears only in certain match ups nowadays at pro lvl but on the ladder on the other end...
Yeah, true. I think having units evolve over time in SC2, kinda like the experience system of WC3/MOBAs, would be an interesting experiment. We already have "Ranks" for units based on their amount of kills, why not use them to do something useful? Like every marines with 0 kills are identical, but then when a marine gets 5 kills (I'm throwing random numbers here, of course it would have to be balanced) it gets +1 attack, when 10 kills it gets to choose an upgrade among Stim/Combat shield/something else, etc.
|
On February 05 2015 00:31 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 00:27 sAsImre wrote:On February 05 2015 00:25 OtherWorld wrote:On February 04 2015 23:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 04 2015 23:30 StreetWise wrote:On May 14 2014 05:37 Cheren wrote:On May 14 2014 05:34 ShiaoPi wrote:
so you want Warcraft IV? :DDD 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. 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 WC3 is not a RTS that is like a MOBA, it's a RTS that has hero units (and I mean micro-able, interesting, balanced, who gains power over time, hero units, not MoCore/Mothership-like hero units). It's literally a genius concept : tried and true RTS mechanics (workers, ressources, buildings, support units,...), with an emphasis on some specific units (that evolve over time ; that is greatly lacking in SC2 imo) to make the fights more exciting, in-fight micro-centered and less "big red blob clashes with big blue blob. Laser and shots are exchanged. Big red blob disappears. Big blue blob disappears too". The blob problem imo is due to the fact it's the easiest thing to do in sc2. It appears only in certain match ups nowadays at pro lvl but on the ladder on the other end... Yeah, true. I think having units evolve over time in SC2, kinda like the experience system of WC3/MOBAs, would be an interesting experiment. We already have "Ranks" for units based on their amount of kills, why not use them to do something useful? Like every marines with 0 kills are identical, but then when a marine gets 5 kills (I'm throwing random numbers here, of course it would have to be balanced) it gets +1 attack, when 10 kills it gets to choose an upgrade among Stim/Combat shield/something else, etc.
I wonder how overpowered a 10-kill oracle could possible get.. or a 10-kill colossus.
|
On February 05 2015 00:43 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 00:31 OtherWorld wrote:On February 05 2015 00:27 sAsImre wrote:On February 05 2015 00:25 OtherWorld wrote:On February 04 2015 23:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 04 2015 23:30 StreetWise wrote:On May 14 2014 05:37 Cheren wrote:On May 14 2014 05:34 ShiaoPi wrote:
so you want Warcraft IV? :DDD 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. 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 WC3 is not a RTS that is like a MOBA, it's a RTS that has hero units (and I mean micro-able, interesting, balanced, who gains power over time, hero units, not MoCore/Mothership-like hero units). It's literally a genius concept : tried and true RTS mechanics (workers, ressources, buildings, support units,...), with an emphasis on some specific units (that evolve over time ; that is greatly lacking in SC2 imo) to make the fights more exciting, in-fight micro-centered and less "big red blob clashes with big blue blob. Laser and shots are exchanged. Big red blob disappears. Big blue blob disappears too". The blob problem imo is due to the fact it's the easiest thing to do in sc2. It appears only in certain match ups nowadays at pro lvl but on the ladder on the other end... Yeah, true. I think having units evolve over time in SC2, kinda like the experience system of WC3/MOBAs, would be an interesting experiment. We already have "Ranks" for units based on their amount of kills, why not use them to do something useful? Like every marines with 0 kills are identical, but then when a marine gets 5 kills (I'm throwing random numbers here, of course it would have to be balanced) it gets +1 attack, when 10 kills it gets to choose an upgrade among Stim/Combat shield/something else, etc. I wonder how overpowered a 10-kill oracle could possible get.. or a 10-kill colossus.
it's the best "how to make sh worthless" idea :D
|
On February 05 2015 00:31 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 00:27 sAsImre wrote:On February 05 2015 00:25 OtherWorld wrote:On February 04 2015 23:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 04 2015 23:30 StreetWise wrote:On May 14 2014 05:37 Cheren wrote:On May 14 2014 05:34 ShiaoPi wrote:
so you want Warcraft IV? :DDD 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. 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 WC3 is not a RTS that is like a MOBA, it's a RTS that has hero units (and I mean micro-able, interesting, balanced, who gains power over time, hero units, not MoCore/Mothership-like hero units). It's literally a genius concept : tried and true RTS mechanics (workers, ressources, buildings, support units,...), with an emphasis on some specific units (that evolve over time ; that is greatly lacking in SC2 imo) to make the fights more exciting, in-fight micro-centered and less "big red blob clashes with big blue blob. Laser and shots are exchanged. Big red blob disappears. Big blue blob disappears too". The blob problem imo is due to the fact it's the easiest thing to do in sc2. It appears only in certain match ups nowadays at pro lvl but on the ladder on the other end... Yeah, true. I think having units evolve over time in SC2, kinda like the experience system of WC3/MOBAs, would be an interesting experiment. We already have "Ranks" for units based on their amount of kills, why not use them to do something useful? Like every marines with 0 kills are identical, but then when a marine gets 5 kills (I'm throwing random numbers here, of course it would have to be balanced) it gets +1 attack, when 10 kills it gets to choose an upgrade among Stim/Combat shield/something else, etc.
Sounds like Civ IV/V I guess the disadvantage with that is that it could lead to snowball issues. You reward good play/good micro by giving him a buff, but at the same time you're pushing the leading player more and more ahead which could make it super hard for a disadvantaged player to comeback.
Although you could argue that if health doesn't generate/generates super slowly, this wont be as much an issue, but it's still a concern.
The future of RTS for me lies in games like Grey Goo. RTS in which production is largely automated and can be done entirely using hotkeys (so no return to base to select buildings) and a focus on battles with units that do not require a high degree of micro-management.
Keep in mind, is that you're never going have a community that's going to be super interested in that game for that long. With slow mechanical depth, people are going to stop playing that game is going to die out within a month of the game's release.
|
On February 05 2015 00:43 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 00:31 OtherWorld wrote:On February 05 2015 00:27 sAsImre wrote:On February 05 2015 00:25 OtherWorld wrote:On February 04 2015 23:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 04 2015 23:30 StreetWise wrote:On May 14 2014 05:37 Cheren wrote:On May 14 2014 05:34 ShiaoPi wrote:
so you want Warcraft IV? :DDD 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. 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 WC3 is not a RTS that is like a MOBA, it's a RTS that has hero units (and I mean micro-able, interesting, balanced, who gains power over time, hero units, not MoCore/Mothership-like hero units). It's literally a genius concept : tried and true RTS mechanics (workers, ressources, buildings, support units,...), with an emphasis on some specific units (that evolve over time ; that is greatly lacking in SC2 imo) to make the fights more exciting, in-fight micro-centered and less "big red blob clashes with big blue blob. Laser and shots are exchanged. Big red blob disappears. Big blue blob disappears too". The blob problem imo is due to the fact it's the easiest thing to do in sc2. It appears only in certain match ups nowadays at pro lvl but on the ladder on the other end... Yeah, true. I think having units evolve over time in SC2, kinda like the experience system of WC3/MOBAs, would be an interesting experiment. We already have "Ranks" for units based on their amount of kills, why not use them to do something useful? Like every marines with 0 kills are identical, but then when a marine gets 5 kills (I'm throwing random numbers here, of course it would have to be balanced) it gets +1 attack, when 10 kills it gets to choose an upgrade among Stim/Combat shield/something else, etc. I wonder how overpowered a 10-kill oracle could possible get.. or a 10-kill colossus.
That's precisely why I said it would have to be balanced first, obviously you scale the # of kills needed to level up to the role of the unit^^
|
You guys need to check out grey goo.
It simplify a lot of the macro. Making units is automatically spread out in the many factories that you have. You can make a factory automatically produce a unit. And the best thing is that if you want to do it yourself, you can.
|
Russian Federation262 Posts
On February 04 2015 23:30 StreetWise wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 05:37 Cheren wrote:On May 14 2014 05:34 ShiaoPi wrote:
so you want Warcraft IV? :DDD 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.
I would definitely play this game!
They could do it on HotS engine and make lots of money!
Please, Dustin!
|
The cool feeling of watching a giant army you've painstakingly constructed totally pwnerize your enemy's base is being satiated via titles like Boom Beach and Clash of Clans.
stuff like C of C is slowly chipping away at the pool of potential new players games like Starcraft can draw from.
1 of the biggest factors driving the RTS crazed late 90s was that until that time it was impossible for a common PC to handle multiple armies with 100s of units all blowing each other up with thousands of bullets flying.
RTS games are no longer breaking any kinds of technical barriers that create never before seen visuals.
|
I personally dont think that you have to change anything about RTS, the genre had its golden age years before, but it has its exclusive audience now and it is not bad in terms of quantity. What I think is that the link to MOBAs is easier because you are in total control of only one Unit, and that creates a direct relation between the player and the Heroe.
RTS games will be always fun and it is not even about APM, in AoE2 you could see Chris microing 4 different groups of archers and at the same time taking control of the macromanagement, but you as a casual player always could enjoy beating friends or even the campaigns, in BW you got exciting about the pros with those perfect timings, mixed with BO, and great micro to get the advantage, without forgetting the macro, but as a casual player you could have fun too.
|
The old rts games from the "golden" ages are still around and there are plenty of good mods and indie project for example on moddb. Unfortunately the majority of players does not care about those gems. Most people prefer to pay 40 till 60 bucks for a half baked retail game instead of trying a free mod or indie project...
|
On February 04 2015 23:38 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 21:20 Mikau wrote:On February 04 2015 21:07 KingAlphard wrote:On February 04 2015 21:04 maartendq wrote: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. 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. "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.
It is interesting to compare sc and cs i think. A couple of years ago bw and 1.6 competed over which game was the premier e-sport. A competition that bw won. Now look at sc2 and cs:go. cs:go literally has ten times more people watching than sc2. And the major thing that happened was that blizzard made a completely different game while valve just made minor changes to an already winning concept. The day that blizzard makes a sc3 that tries to repeat what made bw into such a great game to begin with I think we will have a big RTS e-sport again.
Maybe its not even that sc2 is a worse game (although I am convinced it is inferior in most ways to its predecessor), just the fact that blizzard made a game that most bw fans hate because it is so different and at the same time forced it down our throats by making it impossible to send bw matches on television, really estranged the new game from such a big part of its fanbase from the start.
|
Canada11265 Posts
On February 04 2015 20:01 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 17:47 L_Master wrote:On February 04 2015 17:22 maartendq wrote:On February 04 2015 14:05 L_Master wrote:On November 25 2014 20:44 maartendq wrote:On November 25 2014 20:35 FrozenProbe wrote: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 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 can't speak for SC2 as I haven't played it enough, but this is nothing but a massive heap of nonsense if we are talking about BW. Why you would post stuff like that without having experience with a game is beyond me. The problem with Brood War (and Starcraft 2) is the skill floor. A player needs a certain level of mechanical skill (often expressed in APM) before strategy comes in play at all. What's the point having thought out a good strategy if your opponent's macro is micro just makes it plain obsolete, or not looking at your army at the wrong second may cause you to lose it? Everything needs to be done manually in Starcraft, from production to telling each unit which enemy unit to shoot. And all of this would actually be quite ok if it weren't for the fact that the standard speed of Starcraft 2 is 'faster'. Sure, you don't need 100 apm to enjoy the game, but if you want to be even slightly competitive - which most people want to be - the closer you are to that number the better. Blizzard designed Starcraft 2 to be a hardcore RTS, and has now noticed that casuals are flocking en-masse to the slower, more friendly MOBA games. No matter what they try for LOTV, they will not get that flood of casuals which they would like. The future of RTS for me lies in games like Grey Goo. RTS in which production is largely automated and can be done entirely using hotkeys (so no return to base to select buildings) and a focus on battles with units that do not require a high degree of micro-management. 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.
Because it happens in real time, mechanical skill will always be factor. If it's in real time, there is the possibility that one of you can perform something faster than the other. . .unless you choke the system back so much that faster players can't find edges to get more stuff out. The only time mechanical skills will not be a factor is turn-based strategy. That's pure strategy, positioning, and composition. You armies will never arrive late because you didn't click fast enough, you will never miss creating a round of units because you lacked speed and you will always form a surround because you have all the time in the world.
However, based on your SupCom comments, I'd say you and I simply like different things out of RTS's. And that's fine. But I get terribly frustrated by that sort unit movement that feel designed to hamstring players- sluggish turn radius, sluggish unit response, no twitch micro. Furthermore, when learning the game as a casual player, I feel games like BW have fewer 'I win' units. There are a handful of units that if you don't know what's going on will wreck you (usually cloaked units) but other than that, even at 40 apm, you probably won't get completely wrecked by wrong army composition- army positioning, striking undefended positions, raids. . . all can balance out because it's about execution.
Whereas, I found when learning SupCom, you can be as sneaky as you want, build giant armies, and then they just build some unit that counters absolutely everything you have. Doesn't really how tricky you are being, they know compositions better and so your giant army is absolutely irrelevant to one or two Experimentals. Yes, as you learn you'd be able to scout and therefore counter the death compositions. But for a casual player, the game feels like it has about 20 different equivalents to the DT rush. And I don't mean 9 pool or 2 gate rushes. I mean DT rush- they built DTs and I did not build the one thing that would stop it (obs) and therefore I die. Prepare against four different sorts of DT rush-analogue rushes and you get hit with a fifth.
If you an encyclopedic knowledge of the game's compositions, I'm sure it becomes fun. But it's a composition game and I prefer execution games. I want to be able to control my armies better than my opponent and I want my units to respond precisely to my commands. It feels more visceral to me- as though I'm dueling with my opponent, using the units as sword strokes. I don't want to feel like a General Manager or Head Coach of a hockey team, watching my players do their thing on the ice. I do not like seeing my strategies go up in flame because my opponent had a better draft pick than me. (Now granted, I'm making a rather extreme point here, because composition actually does matter in BW, it's just not as prominent as SupCom, and I appreciate the difference.)
Anyways, I guess there's a reason why I'll try out a new RTS and then go back to BW. I just don't appreciate sluggish and slow unit control, but I guess if you think that creates more strategy, then all power to you. But in that case, I'd rather just play a turn-based strategy game for pure strategy.
|
On February 05 2015 03:11 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 23:38 Endymion wrote:On February 04 2015 21:20 Mikau wrote:On February 04 2015 21:07 KingAlphard wrote:On February 04 2015 21:04 maartendq wrote: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. 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. "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. It is interesting to compare sc and cs i think. A couple of years ago bw and 1.6 competed over which game was the premier e-sport. A competition that bw won. Now look at sc2 and cs:go. cs:go literally has ten times more people watching than sc2. And the major thing that happened was that blizzard made a completely different game while valve just made minor changes to an already winning concept. The day that blizzard makes a sc3 that tries to repeat what made bw into such a great game to begin with I think we will have a big RTS e-sport again. Maybe its not even that sc2 is a worse game (although I am convinced it is inferior in most ways to its predecessor), just the fact that blizzard made a game that most bw fans hate because it is so different and at the same time forced it down our throats by making it impossible to send bw matches on television, really estranged the new game from such a big part of its fanbase from the start.
To be fair, CS:GO is way inferior to 1.6 in a lot of ways as well.
The big obstacle is, that CS:GO wasn't in a genre that's dead. FPS have ALWAYS been super popular. You have FPS selling millions and millions of copies every year, you don't have that in RTS. I think the only 2 "traditional" RTS that have sold more than 4 million copies (base game) in the entire genre history is Starcraft and Starcraft II (Very Possible Warcraft III, not solid figures on how # copies sold)
|
On February 05 2015 04:10 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 03:11 Elroi wrote:On February 04 2015 23:38 Endymion wrote:On February 04 2015 21:20 Mikau wrote:On February 04 2015 21:07 KingAlphard wrote:On February 04 2015 21:04 maartendq wrote: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. 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. "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. It is interesting to compare sc and cs i think. A couple of years ago bw and 1.6 competed over which game was the premier e-sport. A competition that bw won. Now look at sc2 and cs:go. cs:go literally has ten times more people watching than sc2. And the major thing that happened was that blizzard made a completely different game while valve just made minor changes to an already winning concept. The day that blizzard makes a sc3 that tries to repeat what made bw into such a great game to begin with I think we will have a big RTS e-sport again. Maybe its not even that sc2 is a worse game (although I am convinced it is inferior in most ways to its predecessor), just the fact that blizzard made a game that most bw fans hate because it is so different and at the same time forced it down our throats by making it impossible to send bw matches on television, really estranged the new game from such a big part of its fanbase from the start. To be fair, CS:GO is way inferior to 1.6 in a lot of ways as well. The big obstacle is, that CS:GO wasn't in a genre that's dead. FPS have ALWAYS been super popular. You have FPS selling millions and millions of copies every year, you don't have that in RTS. I think the only 2 "traditional" RTS that have sold more than 4 million copies (base game) in the entire genre history is Starcraft and Starcraft II (Very Possible Warcraft III, not solid figures on how # copies sold)
Frozen thrones shifted 5 mill units. BW shifted 9.5 mill.
SC2 WoL seems to be around 6 mill, but I'm having a hard time finding numbers for HoTS except for the "1.1 million units in 48 hours" they keep bragging on about.
The only non-blizzard RTS that seems to come close is Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War, which sold 4 million copies.
Sources are hefty googling, so I could be mistaken.
|
On February 05 2015 04:37 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 04:10 lestye wrote:On February 05 2015 03:11 Elroi wrote:On February 04 2015 23:38 Endymion wrote:On February 04 2015 21:20 Mikau wrote:On February 04 2015 21:07 KingAlphard wrote:On February 04 2015 21:04 maartendq wrote: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. 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. "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. It is interesting to compare sc and cs i think. A couple of years ago bw and 1.6 competed over which game was the premier e-sport. A competition that bw won. Now look at sc2 and cs:go. cs:go literally has ten times more people watching than sc2. And the major thing that happened was that blizzard made a completely different game while valve just made minor changes to an already winning concept. The day that blizzard makes a sc3 that tries to repeat what made bw into such a great game to begin with I think we will have a big RTS e-sport again. Maybe its not even that sc2 is a worse game (although I am convinced it is inferior in most ways to its predecessor), just the fact that blizzard made a game that most bw fans hate because it is so different and at the same time forced it down our throats by making it impossible to send bw matches on television, really estranged the new game from such a big part of its fanbase from the start. To be fair, CS:GO is way inferior to 1.6 in a lot of ways as well. The big obstacle is, that CS:GO wasn't in a genre that's dead. FPS have ALWAYS been super popular. You have FPS selling millions and millions of copies every year, you don't have that in RTS. I think the only 2 "traditional" RTS that have sold more than 4 million copies (base game) in the entire genre history is Starcraft and Starcraft II (Very Possible Warcraft III, not solid figures on how # copies sold) Frozen thrones shifted 5 mill units. BW shifted 9.5 mill. SC2 WoL seems to be around 6 mill, but I'm having a hard time finding numbers for HoTS except for the "1.1 million units in 48 hours" they keep bragging on about. The only non-blizzard RTS that seems to come close is Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War, which sold 4 million copies. Sources are hefty googling, so I could be mistaken.
Do you have a citation for TFT? Wiki says SC1 sold 11 million. and that warhammer 40k quote was for the game + all expansions. I was going off of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games
But whatever, my point is RTS is pretty much not selling, even with they're being more accessiblity and more PCs, even for Blizzard.
|
I would guess the only difference to explain the relative popularity of MOBAs compared to RTS is that it's more fun to play with more people. That's also why football is more popular than say, tennis or track&field. Get a bunch of friends and a ball and play football vs get ONE friend (soon to be lost because you'll likely hate each other's guts at the end of the match) and play tennis :D
|
On February 05 2015 04:10 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 03:11 Elroi wrote:On February 04 2015 23:38 Endymion wrote:On February 04 2015 21:20 Mikau wrote:On February 04 2015 21:07 KingAlphard wrote:On February 04 2015 21:04 maartendq wrote: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. 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. "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. It is interesting to compare sc and cs i think. A couple of years ago bw and 1.6 competed over which game was the premier e-sport. A competition that bw won. Now look at sc2 and cs:go. cs:go literally has ten times more people watching than sc2. And the major thing that happened was that blizzard made a completely different game while valve just made minor changes to an already winning concept. The day that blizzard makes a sc3 that tries to repeat what made bw into such a great game to begin with I think we will have a big RTS e-sport again. Maybe its not even that sc2 is a worse game (although I am convinced it is inferior in most ways to its predecessor), just the fact that blizzard made a game that most bw fans hate because it is so different and at the same time forced it down our throats by making it impossible to send bw matches on television, really estranged the new game from such a big part of its fanbase from the start. To be fair, CS:GO is way inferior to 1.6 in a lot of ways as well. The big obstacle is, that CS:GO wasn't in a genre that's dead. FPS have ALWAYS been super popular. You have FPS selling millions and millions of copies every year, you don't have that in RTS. I think the only 2 "traditional" RTS that have sold more than 4 million copies (base game) in the entire genre history is Starcraft and Starcraft II (Very Possible Warcraft III, not solid figures on how # copies sold)
But it is not inferior by a margin as big as sc2 and bw. also everything else CS:GO brings into changes the tide.
You can now simply get your 4 friends and click a button and play against another team. Instead of navigating through IRC to find a PCW.
Also, more weapons are relevant now. CS:GO changed a lot from when it was first released, Valve listens to the community and the pros a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
