|
i"m not rooting versus rts like sc2 (scbw starbow hepcraft etc), i'm wondering why the lack of enthusiasm for other genres.
"people not that stupid"? have you seen the cardstone numbers, i beg to differ 
anyway ;P
i'm not talking about depths of play, just number of units and asymmetry absent.. (like chess, same units for all live players)
when u play sc2 version of football on arcade or photon cycles .. everyone has the same unit that would be no different)
On March 06 2018 18:12 Mun_Su wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
real time tactical :D ahahahhahahaa nice one <3
rts = rtts same thing, that's just semantics (like anyone saying sc and sc2 are different, they aren't)
thanks again for engaging in the conversation <3
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 ?
this thread is about that
any variation of rts like sc/sc2 can be viable
why do "very different" variation not get out in the public?
why are those very different types of rts not eagerly sought out by self called "rts" enthusiasts?
|
Just some input, not directly answering your questions.
If you define a match as both player playing both sides once similar to overwatch one attack and one defense round, you don't have to bother with balance that much anymore.
|
On March 06 2018 19:07 DSh1 wrote:
Just some input, not directly answering your questions.
If you define a match as both player playing both sides once similar to overwatch one attack and one defense round, you don't have to bother with balance that much anymore.
<3 nice input i hadn't thought of that .. although that lobby game mechanic requires for there to be several "rounds".
<3
|
On March 06 2018 11:55 FabledIntegral wrote:
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?
sc2 has "asymmetric" balance
3 races using different gameplays/abities/etc
What if you played a more "simple" rts and it would turn out more competitive/fun/quick ?
Just do the maths:
not playing only tvt,
playing tvt with less terran units that use all the sc2 mechanics/abilities/etc has from all the three races?
(imagine the ghost launching warhounds on marines instead of a queen sending lings for instance)
the idea is to + Show Spoiler [rant sorry] +use all rts mechanics/gameplay/etc into a different recipe
one that is perfectly balanced (players have same units at the start)
one that thrives to showcase all the simple micro/multitasking/macro/etc and the complex
but to an uneducated crowd
Why? because it is those skills that matter, and the fun we have developing these, not the exact lore or historical box in which it is played or even the details of them playing it out in front of them
whether you are playing with cubes marines battlecruisers or motorcycle it does not matter
what matters is the strategy, the balls, the knowledge of the game should be immaterial really (best reason for putting that to a minimum no?)
only the thought process developed (to gain victory) and the micro / macro / multitasking / live decision making / prioritizing / paying attention / focusing properly etc.. matters
only developing those skills matter!
nice talk, please tl do go on 
|
but having three races is better for amateur players. you can always blame it on the other races beeing overpowered when you loose (some pro players do that to of course ^^).
Its the same than in MOBAs where you can blame your team. We shouldnt underestimate that.
|
On March 06 2018 21:26 tAlionsc2 wrote:
but having three races is better for amateur players. you can always blame it on the other races beeing overpowered when you loose (some pro players do that to of course ^^).
Its the same than in MOBAs where you can blame your team. We shouldnt underestimate that.
Are you implying that each race caters to their players? 
|
There was a game almost quite like this called World in Conflict, which was aiming for co-op mass battles RTS, sortoff a bit like a moba mixed with an RTS. It was very beautiful, each side had practically the same units, but had were subdivided, into tanks, infantry, aircraft and support/artillery, so only those players could buy the heaviest vairant, but it was almost too simple being that it was based on cold war units. In the end, a bit like mirror matchups, the best composition became the only compostion. There was A>B>C>A going on but it only actually ever occured when on side was too heavily slandted on A and the end result was A+C beats or nearly equals everything.
|
Possibly off topic but I have to agree with Sundr. I love RTS games, and would definitely play a new one with maybe even more than 3 races. But it seems like game developers are riding the hype train to easy money (especially in this modern world of pay to win, free to play, DLC garbage, etc.
If any developer actually had the guts to release one as fantastic and high skill-cap as Starcraft 2 without all the ridiculous moba abilities I would absolutely pay money to play it.
Grew up on AoE, Total Annihilation, Command and Conquer, etc. I definitely do not believe RTS genre is dead - it's just that no one has released any for some strange reason.
|
|
|
RTS is not dead, just harder to balance and design. It's amazing SC2 managed to be relatively balanced.
Past RTS failed because the meta became stale.
|
On March 07 2018 01:49 Mun_Su wrote:
MOBA killed RTS, sadly.
mobas are team rts no?
the 1v1 is just a special moba (i'd place a forbidden emote here if i could  )
|
On March 07 2018 02:11 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
RTS is not dead, just harder to balance and design. It's amazing SC2 managed to be relatively balanced.
Past RTS failed because the meta became stale.
i respectfully dissagree 
gamers choose their games, while it isn't totally on the dev shoulders to make new games, gamers MAKE games trendy...
i'd say gamers are scared of playing competitive rts-es and that is why we have 20k players only.
But 20k is fine by me, more than enough to make new rts and have this 20k DO instead of whimper.
But then again i'm the most ignored peep on tl / sc2 twit ch, so ...
<3 rts
<3 playing many different rts <3
Do you?
|
On March 07 2018 19:22 fluidrone wrote:mobas are team rts no? the 1v1 is just a special moba (i'd place a forbidden emote here if i could )
I don't think so 
for me RTS are just the best games. Total Annihilation, AoE (and Age of Mythologie, loved those heroes), Sc Bw and Sc2, supreme commander forged alliances. no games are better than RTS
|
1237 Posts
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
It's easy to tell who was around back in the day and who wasn't based on unfounded opinions like this.
Not that I'm necessarily agreeing TA is the best (although it is very good), but your remark that it would become stale and boring is pure conjecture, and uneducated one at that.
|
|
|
Canada8990 Posts
You could check Empire Earth 1, it's quite an old game but a pretty interesting one.
It's a AOE type of game but with around 15 ages instead of 3 or 4, and a whole lot of civilisation with little variation that are mostly age bases (for exemple the greck might have faster farm in the 2 or 3 first ages, but the chinese will be able to build robots faster late games).
The variation between the civilisation is a lot smaller the in lets say SC or even AOE and the big number of ages open a lot of avenue for different strategy. Altought the gameplay is a bit clunky and I think the server got shot down so you have to go throught others private servers.
|
On March 08 2018 02:39 207aicila 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 It's easy to tell who was around back in the day and who wasn't based on unfounded opinions like this. Not that I'm necessarily agreeing TA is the best (although it is very good), but your remark that it would become stale and boring is pure conjecture, and uneducated one at that. Unfounded conjecture indeed, i feel boredom stems from people playing it and the particular game's community thing, nothing to do with the game itself. Thank you for link <3 will check it out
On March 08 2018 03:20 Nakajin wrote:
You could check Empire Earth 1, it's quite an old game but a pretty interesting one.
It's a AOE type of game but with around 15 ages instead of 3 or 4, and a whole lot of civilisation with little variation that are mostly age bases (for exemple the greck might have faster farm in the 2 or 3 first ages, but the chinese will be able to build robots faster late games).
The variation between the civilisation is a lot smaller the in lets say SC or even AOE and the big number of ages open a lot of avenue for different strategy. Altought the gameplay is a bit clunky and I think the server got shot down so you have to go throught others private servers. i loved empire earth <3 but no one plays it really, no?
...
Really sad.. i just spent the week networking to get people to play my map and it seems the sc2 community always say they need this or that but won't spend 15 minutes to try a new rts map...
Every year i do a new map it really feels like a cold  in winter,
can't be the map since players don't even try it ! so it must be me then ..
or maybe
just maybe
the sc2 community is a bunch of loudmouths with no balls that should put their money (their time) where their mouth is and
actually try new maps on the arcade.
i guess my next stop is to go plead for blizzard to release my "map plays" stats .. just to see if my map gets play at all, since i have no way to know...
and like that + Show Spoiler +.. he's gone 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
