On January 07 2017 20:32 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The next big rts will probably be way more radical with its "modern" approach, simply because players these days seem to dislike mechanical difficult games. In essence that means it will be closer and closer to round based games where the real time part will be less and less impactful.
The other possibility already happened with mobas, going allin on the micro part of rts

The subgenre of real-time tactics already exists, just because some games do not want to be as mechanical difficult as classical rts titles does not mean the end of the world for rts games. CnC 4 tried to be over simplistic and almost no one liked that game.

Foxxan

Sweden3427 Posts

January 08 2017 16:09 GMT

#242

What is this game you can send me to which actually does all of that which people like?

Sorry man, no such game exist(yet) and no game comes even close.

On top of that i don't see people likign to multitask.

I understand what you mean I think. I mean, multitasking initself isnt fun i guess, especially if its "fast mutlitasking" meaning there are very fast action that is necessary.

So i believe if you slow it down, so you dont need these super fast actions on many areas. So lets say you have actions on three different places at once. If you focus on one place 80% of the time it could be a really nice result. I think people would like this.
Or maybe even 33% on each place but its still not even close to the speed of fast sc2 and even broodwar. Its "slower".

To give en example:
In bw and sc2, you drop something and you kill workers- Workers die REALLY FAST so if lets say 6marines stand there for 10sec, it could mean all your workers are dead.
Instead of workers that collect minerals, what if buildings collect it and what if htose buildings die much slower.

Now it already slowed it down - So to really kill your opponent you cant just simple drop something and if it stays there and do damage for free for 10seconds you win - no, you will need much more movements with your units, you need do outtactic him or outstrategic him and still stay sharp when fights occur.

For example, to outtactic someone in sc2, you attack infront with some bio force and than if he comes to that location - you drop units in his main.
Yes this will happen in that RTS as well but there will be much more finesse in that one.

I am pretty confident we will have a game like this ,but not anytime soon. Atleast 5years.

The_Red_Viper

19533 Posts

January 08 2017 16:22 GMT

#243

On January 09 2017 01:09 Foxxan wrote:

Show nested quote +

Sorry man, no such game exist(yet) and no game comes even close.

I specifically meant your first statement here:

Players these days doesnt seem to dislike difficult mechanics as long as they are dynamic, requires decisionmaking and feels rewarding.

On January 09 2017 01:09 Foxxan wrote:

Show nested quote +

I understand what you mean I think. I mean, multitasking initself isnt fun i guess, especially if its "fast mutlitasking" meaning there are very fast action that is necessary.

So i believe if you slow it down, so you dont need these super fast actions on many areas. So lets say you have actions on three different places at once. If you focus on one place 80% of the time it could be a really nice result. I think people would like this.
Or maybe even 33% on each place but its still not even close to the speed of fast sc2 and even broodwar. Its "slower".

To give en example:
In bw and sc2, you drop something and you kill workers- Workers die REALLY FAST so if lets say 6marines stand there for 10sec, it could mean all your workers are dead.
Instead of workers that collect minerals, what if buildings collect it and what if htose buildings die much slower.

Now it already slowed it down - So to really kill your opponent you cant just simple drop something and if it stays there and do damage for free for 10seconds you win - no, you will need much more movements with your units, you need do outtactic him or outstrategic him and still stay sharp when fights occur.

The micro we have in bw and sc2 isnt really "advanced" at all imo either. Well Dark swarm is a bit advanced but the advanced part is very small overall.

I see so much potential man. Iam kinda confident that a game like this will happen, but not soon though. Atleast 5years, like a new unknown company that comes along or something.
I considder like every developer bad.

I am not even talking about screen switching necessarily. (even though that's obviously the "hardest" part of multitasking.
I would go as far as saying that people are already disliking simply selecting different things on the same screen and control that. Like for example pullign some workers to repair a bunker and at the same time micro the main army.
Basically "multitasking" is everything which requires you to select different units/buildngs/etc at any given time. The problem is that in rts games you do nothign else really, it's all about finding the right priorities to do certain tasks with lots of different units/buildings.

Like for example in mobas, heroes which have more than one "unit" to control seem to be picked less as well. People don't like to control more things at once.

To get into your example: I would actually like that. It should be designed so one small mistake won't lose you the game, especially when that mistake can happen in the span of a fraction of a second. Sc2 does a bad job in that regard imo.

The thing is that no matter what you change, it impacts so many things you simply cannot foresee 100%. That's why constant iterations are so important. It is ok to fuck it up if you are willing to change it asap again

Foxxan

Sweden3427 Posts

January 08 2017 18:14 GMT

#244

Interesting perspective about multitasking. In mobas in particular the multitasking there feels like crap overall. I can understand why people dont play those heroes, me myself dislike to play those heroes alot cuz it just feels bad.
ANd i in general dont really dislike multitasking.

But for people to like and appreciate it needs to feel rewarding and satisfying. SC2 dont do that well at all.
Infact BW does it best and iam not sure i would call it good either in that game.

Its hard to explain in words. But ye i dont have much more to say.

The thing is that no matter what you change, it impacts so many things you simply cannot foresee 100%. That's why constant iterations are so important. It is ok to fuck it up if you are willing to change it asap again

Sorry if i misunderstand this.
You mean when you make a game, lets say a new rts you make constant changes to it? Test? Change more and so on.
Ye then i agree 100%. You will probably need to spend an enormous energy to really make it great overall.

With a lot of testing and failing and thinking.

The_Red_Viper

19533 Posts

January 08 2017 18:47 GMT

#245

Oh yeah i mean constant iterations in developing a game. I would have liked if the beta phases in particular would have tested a lot more live with beta testers. Instead we often got "our in house team tested X and it didn't do much, etc"
And even now, with how the ptr changes can be tested now i don't see why they don't test more. The actual multiplayer team who is doing stuff has to be incredibly small. But yeah that's kinda off topic now.

Jealous

10195 Posts

January 11 2017 03:04 GMT

#246

Another potential option for "real time" strategy games would be something like Clash of Clans, where you make your army in your base first, then you use micro to engage the battles. I guess a more accurate example would be, what was the UMS called, Starcraft Tournament? You have 15 minutes to macro then you played a micro tournament with the army you made against your opponents. I can see that being the "future" of RTS as it cleanly divides the two aspects of the game which may be more pleasant for people who are just so overwhelmed by all of the work that goes into RTS like Brood War.

As people have mentioned earlier in the thread, casual gamers are being increasingly spoonfed "fun" with little-to-no "effort" or "investment" besides time. Progress through many modern casual games is mostly linear and is more based on time than concerted practice, training, or studying of guides/replays/whatever. Casual gamers make up the majority of the market so they need to be catered to by companies in order to ensure profit. Thus, I find it unlikely that a company like Blizzard which spends a ton of money on their dev team and other resources like advertising, server upkeep, etc. will find it worthwhile to make a traditionally challenging RTS in the future and will most likely veer the genre towards the casual market even more. Our best chance is a grassroots campaign with a kickstarter and some super dedicated fans with coding experience. However, I don't even really think that is necessary because I would just ask myself, "Why not just play Brood War/AoE2?" I'm sure I'm not alone in this boat.