|
What if rts had many variations on the gameplays / concepts? What if there were 50 viable variations of sc instead of 2 ?
i made a map where players all play the same units.. and i feel there is a market / demand for such "balanced" rts maps/games.
i love the fact that sc/sc2 have three races and i'm not asking you to change your preference, just asking maybe that we consider the idea...
i believe the future of rts is bright and that it comes from within and towards hundreds of variants <3
What do you think dear tl?
Disclaimer: i don't want to make it about my map you see? i just want to hear the issue:
tldr: is there a place for a more simple concept to shine (only mirror match ups)
tldr: Back up here now : is there a place for several rts?
i would like to ensure you there should at least be a place for complex versions and simple versions and a place for long or nasty quick?
no?
|
Sorry but the video is too poor quality to see or hear what is going on.
|
Since i'm definitely not advertising my map ..  why is the poor quality of the video relevant to answering the question(s) i asked? 
+ Show Spoiler [Questions asked] +On March 06 2018 07:08 fluidrone wrote:What if rts had many variations on the gameplays / concepts? What if there were 50 viable variations of sc instead of 2 ? i made a map where players all play the same units.. and i feel there is a market / demand for such "balanced" rts maps/games. i love the fact that sc/sc2 have three races and i'm not asking you to change your preference, just asking maybe that we consider the idea... i believe the future of rts is bright and that it comes from within and towards hundreds of variants <3 What do you think dear tl? Disclaimer: i don't want to make it about my map you see? i just want to hear the issue:
tldr: is there a place for a more simple concept to shine ?
(only mirror match ups would make it different no?)
tldr: / : is there a place for several rts?
i would like to ensure you there should at least be a place for complex versions and simple versions and a place for long or nasty quick? no?
|
Mirror matchup style RTS has been attempted plenty of times in the past with the first RTS games I believe, but failed due to it becoming very stale and gimmicky, normally with these type of things it makes for either a lot of cheese or super passive play.
|
And how about the length of the games?
Can we have a quick paced rts (yes, quicker than sc2) ?
With less different units, lasting 15 to 20 minutes instead of 30 to 60?
|
Best RTS ever is named Total Annihilation and it is played with two races that use quite similar units with small disparities. Also Supreme Commander, one the GOAT RTS (at least in its Forged Alliance iteration) use different units and races but with similar mechanics.
|
Sure, you CAN have these types of RTS's, but as I said they will in the end become stale and boring, especially for the viewers, Best RTS ever = Total Annihilation? I guess this all opinion after all lol =p
|
On March 06 2018 08:10 GGzerG wrote:
Sure, you CAN have these types of RTS's, but as I said they will in the end become stale and boring, especially for the viewers, Best RTS ever = Total Annihilation? I guess this all opinion after all lol =p
Actually that's a fact.
|
On March 06 2018 08:15 NinjaNight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 08:10 GGzerG wrote:
Sure, you CAN have these types of RTS's, but as I said they will in the end become stale and boring, especially for the viewers, Best RTS ever = Total Annihilation? I guess this all opinion after all lol =p Actually that's a fact.
The most factual fact ever.
On March 06 2018 07:46 fluidrone wrote:
And how about the length of the games?
Can we have a quick paced rts (yes, quicker than sc2) ?
With less different units, lasting 15 to 20 minutes instead of 30 to 60?
C'mon a lot of Sc2 games last 5 to 20 min. How can you make it faster without removing the "S" in RTS 
|
totala is like this, imo its balance is not very good at all but I still love that game forever lol it does have its own unique style and amazing battlefields with explosions leaving metal corpses of robot units that you can then blow up or absorb or they will get in the way of movement and projectiles @_@ its pretty amazing
|
when I was a kid I found so amazing to see that your tank or plasma batterie or big bertha will shoot at a best rang when put in high ground, or that the wrecks will stay forever in game if you don't destroy or reclaim them. Physics on this game were on point !
|
|
|
It is possible to have any kinds of RTS games, but for them to succeed, we need very experienced and not greedy developers, who have very good understanding on how these systems work and are able to actually create something solid.
Today Blizzard is literally the last man standing in the market of RTS games with formula invented 20 years ago. Modern RTS developers either try to ride hype train by trying to shove trendy, gimmicky mechanics, which would never work in any RTS game, stealing someones' ideas, without having a clue how to implement them right, trying something extremely niche (and often quite shallow), or just simply stagnating, trying to push last century ideas as something innovative.
This is all very sad news. RTS market is large, untapped territory with overwhelming demand, but because it is one of the hardest concepts to design, nobody has enough balls and ambition to get into it and pull off something people will start talking about, something that will be fun to play, fresh and solid at the same time. Nowadays everyone who has enough funding and abilities to make great RTS game chasing MOBA/Battle Royale/you name it success, trying to make quick bucks on it. Disgusting...
|
I don't get how this is different than a mirror MU, unless you mean with only a single mirror MU, you could balance the gameplay around that specifically without worrying about the other races?
|
the only way this would be interesting is if the races each had so many units that multiple completely unique unit compositions are viable... which basically achieves the same thing as having multiple races.
|
An RTS like this could work, but the balance would be difficult and meta could get stale quickly. One reason for this is due to the Yomi effect. If unit A > unit B > unit C > unit A, but I have access to all units, what prevents me from getting units A/B/C? Then everyone will just strive for ABC and the meta is stale.
So we look at maybe balancing it with quantities. Let's say I go for ABC at 25%/50%/25% and my opponent wants 50/20/30 ratio, will my ratio be a better composition? The more units available, the harder it will be to balance.
One of the ways to ensure balance and fluid meta is to create meaningful choices. SC2 starts balance by the race we choose, and from there resource dictates the meaningful choices.
To create an RTS with all units available, we would need to limit units based on choices or resources.
For example, if I build unit A than unit B is unavailable. If resources are used to limit unit choice than the game would need a wider variety of resources than just minerals and vespene gas. Theoretically, I can only gather the resources needed to create units A and B, but I can't get enough to make unit C.
Another method would be to implement a card system for the units. So balance is dictated before the game begins based on what cards I use to buff my units. This style of balance isn't entirely preferred because you aren't winning the game based on all choices made throughout the entire game, but based on choices made before the game even starts.
TLDR: it could work, but a system to create meaningful choices has to be implemented to create balance and a fluid meta.
|
When you want to have a competitive and balanced RTS game, 3 and 4 different unit comps (races) become the upper limit. Even 5 or 6 become almost impossible to maintain anything resembling balance. I like the idea but it will be for a casual RTS game which feels fresh for the first 10 games or so. Since RTS is competitive in nature, there is no market for such RTS games.
|
|
|
Ok thank you for answers. i'll rephrase (because i'm notoriously hard to decipher  ) my pov:
An rts with only one race available opens up to making a more stable rich and ultimately more competitive game
no?
Why is rts only ever a 1v1 to be exiting? would not a world champion for 8 player ffa be more enticing? more 2018 than 1980? (again don't get me wrong i love 1v1 just not limited to it or by it)
Why have more than 3/4 unit types? having less would make gameplay easier to understand, game easier to read for a viewer.. player exploits would be more easily read/decrypted by neophytes, no?
Why aim for long games with 100 units on the map and not strive to keep it to 5 / 10 minutes with less than a dozen unit per player (as a game concept not as a meta)? would not quick/fun games be a good thing?
On another side of the conversation, i have to add that i think all my questions might be answered with this simple word:
self entitlement.
Many rts are available but few real gamers around to play/host them. Gamers are the people who try those new games, try to make them work and try to make other people play them (initially just to be able to play-test these new maps/games). There are few of those and many many people who just blame it on the dev work.. they don't even try the map/game but already have a negative opinion/stance forged/expressed about how the games will play out and this without even realizing it so you can't fault them for it...?
i fault people for this, sure bnet 2zero is s hit but arcade maps have been good/awesome and the so called "balance lovers" have discarded them straight up brutally.
anyway...
very nice discussion i feel to be had, especially in an sc temple thank you, just wish more people voiced their opinions :/
to finish this post i'll add another question just because it is i think a real issue to sort out.
How does the lore fit in this?
The classic marine squad kitting against lings, the collosus kiting lings over a ledge and back, the phoenix lifting a roach.. all those gameplays (all gameplays really) could be done in other more streamlined/balanced ways and this to a more competitive end, but maybe the lore is for much in the way it sets things for us emotionally and intellectually with visuals/sounds.
(like for instance the visual of a squad of marines facing a squad of lings explains better the kitting/surround logistics of the gameplay needed/required
than if it was pure marine versus marine or with marine versus warhound (if the warhound was the equivalent of a ling in all respects exept the visuals/sound)
visuals? sounds?
(don't get me wrong :D i'm sure these matter and that the sc three races concept spawned from that exact thought process:
that gameplays can/must co exists but more importantly must be fun by having a larger palette of units/concepts
but you need to make it sexy .. which is why lings versus marines and not marines versus wardogs...
i guess i should re dig my list of gameplays and re buff up on just how many different concepts exist in sc / sc2 / sc2bw /starbow / etc
and how to not limit my self to that (even in this conversation :D )
just to illustrate,+ Show Spoiler +
in my map (again, so sorry for self advertising)
i made a synergy up with all the units (still a wip for many concepts i develop but i'll take one i got right for the sake of the argument <3 ):
i have a spellcaster unit that switches into two forms, human form can go into astral combat form
when u activate the ability the original unit gets hidden where it stands and
the combat unit goes to battle
if/when it dies, the original unit reappears where you previously hid it
the first unit is a nuking ghost type that gets delivered with a tank style unit that when sieged allows u to arm a nuke for the nuking unit to use
when sieged this unit has an arbiter type ability to cloak units around it
synergy: you get the spellcaster, use its abilities for defense or set it to go attack
you hide it near the cloaking unit / activate the ability / use the "expendable" spellcaster created to attack relentlessly
the two units thought out separately for separate purposes synergize well <3
just an example
i'll re read and re edit in answer(s) to your answers <3 thank you for your time/posts
|
On March 06 2018 17:50 fluidrone wrote:Ok thank you for answers. i'll rephrase (because i'm notoriously hard to decipher ) my pov: An rts with only one race available opens up to making a more stable rich and ultimately more competitive game no?
I don't think we can say that. One or 5 races, it's up to the team who produce it, will they make it enjoyable ?
Why is rts only ever a 1v1 to be exiting? would not a world champion for 8 player ffa be more enticing? more 2018 than 1980? (again don't get me wrong i love 1v1 just not limited to it or by it)
Why no FFA champions in box while running is FFA ? :p I think it's more up to the nature of the game. With many players you can team up which negate the skill of the strongest.
Also in supreme commander theyre were some 2v2 tournaments. In this game even 5v5 is really enjoyeable to watch (go to see gyle's youtube channel if you don't trust me) but Stacraft is at his finest, a 1v1.
Why have more than 3/4 unit types? having less would make gameplay easier to understand, game easier to read for a viewer.. player exploits would be more easily read/decrypted by neophytes, no?
People are not that stupid you know. And when you play the game you enjoy a little diversity. Air unit, ground unit, structures, construction units, tier 1/2 (at least) units etc. Even chess have 7 different types of units.
Why aim for long games with 100 units on the map and not strive to keep it to 5 / 10 minutes with less than a dozen unit per player (as a game concept not as a meta)? would not quick/fun games be a good thing?
12 units would be a real time tactical game at best, not a RTS. And if I want quick games I play Tekken 7. more than 10min games are highly enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
