|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
On May 15 2015 03:00 Grumbels wrote:
^ In chess you have the same starting position but a lot of different openings, for instance there are over a thousand named opening variants listed. You usually rush through the opening phase of the game and get straight to a seemingly unique position. And people do actually complain a lot if they see the same openings over and over.
I think there should be other ways to have variety outside of having a dozen factions. It works as a model for MOBAs, but a faction is more complicated than a hero and WC3 ended up imbalanced despite the largely symmetrical race design and micro opportunities in the game. An example of what seems to work for Starcraft is the distinction between bio and mech, if those were two completely valid play styles with only a couple of units in common then you'd maintain the number of factions but there would be higher strategic diversity.
My idea for a future RTS game was one with only two factions (easier to balance and imo more sensible from a story perspective, like dire vs radiant), but about three to five viable sub-factions within each faction. That's the sort of model which can be expanded upon more easily as well.
Sub factions and divergences from those sub factions are my favorite form of RTS variety.
Example:
Terran
-Mech (mobile buffs for one, immobile buffs for the other)
-Bio (Drops vs Trenches)
Etc...
|
On May 15 2015 03:00 Grumbels wrote:
^ In chess you have the same starting position but a lot of different openings, for instance there are over a thousand named opening variants listed. You usually rush through the opening phase of the game and get straight to a seemingly unique position. And people do actually complain a lot if they see the same openings over and over.
I think there should be other ways to have variety outside of having a dozen factions. It works as a model for MOBAs, but a faction is more complicated than a hero and WC3 ended up imbalanced despite the largely symmetrical race design and micro opportunities in the game. An example of what seems to work for Starcraft is the distinction between bio and mech, if those were two completely valid play styles with only a couple of units in common then you'd maintain the number of factions but there would be higher strategic diversity.
My idea for a future RTS game was one with only two factions (easier to balance and imo more sensible from a story perspective, like dire vs radiant), but about three to five viable sub-factions within each faction. That's the sort of model which can be expanded upon more easily as well.
I'm a lousy chess player, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me the reason only a handful of openings get the majority of playtime at the high level is that "cute" plays don't have the benefit of fog of war or real time, so simply having a big enough repertoire (which is much easier to accomplish now than it's ever been) protects you, so there's no real incentive to play something unusual past a certain ELO. Again I'm pretty shit (1400) so I probably shouldn't even go there. Bongcloud attack ftw though.
I agree with you on your two faction point. I think that reducing the number of moving parts and giving each of those parts more depth is the most enjoyable approach.
|
On February 15 2015 05:04 hvylobster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2015 04:26 TMG26 wrote:
So i think the reason it "failed" is pretty much what a put above.
But how can a traditional RTS have a F2P model? or a really low price ?
Hang on, I think it's still too early to call Grey Goo a "Failure", especially when you list CS:GO as a popular game. I know CS is 40 euro cheaper than GG, but GG also suffers much more from not being a Valve game and having only 8 maps for skirmish mode. As far as I know it has a robust campaign (that I haven't touched yet), and I think many of us here were initially attracted to Starcraft by its campaign and the implied vast story universe, then learned that Multiplayer Melee maps could be crazy fun. In terms of appealing to broad audiences, the first step in successful RTS games is a strong campaign that teaches you how one can play the game without being a Training Map with story attached. Grey Goo gets excellent word of mouth from me, so we'll see in a few months if it's still "dead"
I think the argument can be made that the campaign really isn't that important for an RTS game. I understand that you are talking about appealing to 'broad audiences', not just the ultra competitive gamer, but I think that most people who play strategy games must be at least somewhat competitive and are really drawn to the game for the multiplayer experience. MOBAs are the perfect example of that because they don't even have a campaign yet they are still super popular.
Me personally, I have played StarCraft since I was about 10 (I am 22 now) and I only ever played through the BW campaign once and only got through half of the WoL campaign. I know that many others play and enjoy the game but I'm not so sure that is the main draw.
|
Never been interested in Chess openings, which makes most people frustrated playing against me because most know one opening to perfection. So they know most good moves until turn 30.
And since teams train together they all do pretty similar openings. As they usually only train one opening and the other common ones for when they are black.
Over the last years it seems there have been alot of discussion and research put into all the openings and people settled on a few openings that can force the game into a direction. So people get forced into playing a few of those openings. Atleast in my region. (Never got into national finals for women)
Everyone started focusing on openings all of a sudden and even the little ones were only trained in the early game. And people surrendered super early not only in training. As a result everyone became abyssal in lategame, the only part I enjoyed in Chess.
So moral of the story is, trying to have many options in the early game sounds nice. But at some point there is a silent agreement onto a few opening to get rid of some complexity and suddenly the game becomes really one dimensional. We can see that in Sc2 to some extend, since Blizzard tried to make everything viable at every point and to provide alot of options in the early game.
And since they actively balanced around how people played those silent agreements caused heavy balance issues which limited the game in the end.
So I think I prefer their old approaches to rts design. Where you were rather limited at what you do, but it changed from what race you were facing, which allowed the races to be way more different. So the game basically enforced variety, by limiting you, while Sc2 allows you to always do the same. Well it is actually forcing you to always do the same if you want to win, because we get better by repetition.
Felt way to forced for me that all 3 races in Sc2 had ways to go oversupply for example and took away the uniqueness of doing it.
|
People playing the same chess openings is not true at the top level.
For example, the top three players basically never played the same opening twice in 2015.
Carlsen
Anand
Caruana
|
|
|
On May 15 2015 08:53 Kupon3ss wrote:
white OP nerf pl0x
Fucking Icefraud.
I guess people don't even know what to expect from patches, interesthing things, balance thing, wtv.
|
On May 15 2015 07:59 helpman173 wrote:People playing the same chess openings is not true at the top level. For example, the top three players basically never played the same opening twice in 2015. CarlsenAnandCaruana
There are really only 4 openings as white...C, D, E, or weird (Grob!). Whether they played a Ruy Lopez, English, or Giacco Piano or whatever is a drilling down on what happened after the initial opening and has some dependence on the opponents reply but even though there are opening books with lines from 12 to 30 deep on every conceivable start they are still playing most of the same patterns over and over. I remember Kasparov throwing Karpov for a loop by moving his 'h' pawn at an odd time and very early taking the game out of "book" and Karpov mostly ignoring the pawn and playing a standard line which then lost because the position was slightly different. Eventually opening book will be just massive on the internet and will take every opening to late game and we just will not have a midgame. 
|
On May 16 2015 07:47 Eliezar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2015 07:59 helpman173 wrote:People playing the same chess openings is not true at the top level. For example, the top three players basically never played the same opening twice in 2015. CarlsenAnandCaruana There are really only 4 openings as white...C, D, E, or weird (Grob!). Whether they played a Ruy Lopez, English, or Giacco Piano or whatever is a drilling down on what happened after the initial opening and has some dependence on the opponents reply but even though there are opening books with lines from 12 to 30 deep on every conceivable start they are still playing most of the same patterns over and over. I remember Kasparov throwing Karpov for a loop by moving his 'h' pawn at an odd time and very early taking the game out of "book" and Karpov mostly ignoring the pawn and playing a standard line which then lost because the position was slightly different. Eventually opening book will be just massive on the internet and will take every opening to late game and we just will not have a midgame.
BTW your Anand link lists 5 Ruy Lopez and 5 Queen's Gambit Declined games out of 31 matches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
