| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Dude, they literally posted on TL.net https://tl.net/forum/games/564526-introducing-frost-giant-studios | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25258 Posts
On October 21 2020 05:55 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Extremely exciting. I can't wait to have debates about which of their races is the Protoss of their game. In a bold, possibly illegal move they just have Protoss in the game to fulfil that role. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16700 Posts
On October 21 2020 01:55 MockHamill wrote: I hope it will be a real RTS like SC2 not a pretend RTS like WC3. SC2 has the perfect balance of macro and micro. If too little macro it becomes shallow like WC3. If too little micro it becomes too similar to Age of Empires, which although being a great game, is not as masterpiece like SC2. I propose there is no "perfect balance" of micro and macro. The "perfect balance" of the two comes down to personal taste. Sometimes, I prefer SC2's mix of micro/macro. Sometimes, I prefer the C&C//RA3 style of RTS with a bare minimum of economy elements where you can focus on combat 95%+ of the time. I like having different styles of RTS games out there. When RTS was at its peak it was really cool seeing C&C: Zero Hour, Brood War and Company of Heroes going strong. I know people who like AoE, C&C, and CoH the most. If they're having fun the way they like to have fun... great for them. They win. For me, none of these games is as good as SC2, however, I can appreciate why others enjoy a different style of RTS. | ||
|
Andi_Goldberger
Germany1608 Posts
 | ||
|
Highgamer
1407 Posts
On October 21 2020 01:55 MockHamill wrote: I hope it will be a real RTS like SC2 not a pretend RTS like WC3. SC2 has the perfect balance of macro and micro. If too little macro it becomes shallow like WC3. If too little micro it becomes too similar to Age of Empires, which although being a great game, is not as masterpiece like SC2. You think WC3 is shallow because the macro is less in relation to SC? What do you mean by "shallow"? This has to be either some kind of inside joke or some top-notch ignorance, because WC3's depths is INSANE. Through its micro-abilities, race-/unit-/matchup-variety and hero-creeping-dynamic is about as deep and difficult of an RTS as it gets... Macro-decisions are not to be taken lightly either, even if the macro-APM-strain is less. If your tools are limited, it's even more important how you use them. I know you shouldn't compare apples and pears, but top-level WC3 is just as hard and in-depth as BW or SC2. I'd say it even excels the latter ones in terms of complexity. Every single match is different because of the afore mentioned variety, more so than in SC, I would say... The games might put strain on the players in different fields, but WC3 will take anyone to their limits, too. If it's "shallower" in terms of macro, build-orders and overall strategy (which I'm pretty sure is not even true), then it's deeper in terms of micro-possibilities and small-scale decision making (like creep-routes, neutral-building-abuse etc.). If this speaks against your definition of RTS then OK, it's just about words then. In the end, everyone can play and like what they want, but calling WC3 shallow is factually wrong. It's a gem of an RTS to me, up there in one league with SC - even though I wouldn't want heroes for this new top-class RTS this thread is about, lol. | ||
|
Shinokuki
United States859 Posts
On October 21 2020 01:55 MockHamill wrote: I hope it will be a real RTS like SC2 not a pretend RTS like WC3. SC2 has the perfect balance of macro and micro. If too little macro it becomes shallow like WC3. If too little micro it becomes too similar to Age of Empires, which although being a great game, is not as masterpiece like SC2. why sc2? why not bw? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25258 Posts
On October 21 2020 05:56 Slydie wrote: -Will they tone down the macro compared to SC2 to focus more on engagements and unit compositions? -How fast will the gameplay be? -How will scouting and fog of war work? -How many races will there be? Where will it be set? Sci-fi? Fantasy? Historic? Near future? Right now? So many questions! Sc1+2 and WC3 actually did some very nice things design wise, maybe especially not making the game all about getting to some insane endgame unit, but also have endgame units worth building. I especially admire SC2 for having found clear, useful niches for every unit. I don't think there are any reasonably big pro tournaments which do not have every unit built at some point. Afaik, that is not the case even for BW, even though you can find them all in the occasional pro-game. The dream for me is some kind of composite combat system is of the best aspects of each game without pushing too hard in either direction. BW Positives -I fucking suck at BW. I played it as a kid casually, had a great time and WC3 hooked me before I discovered TL and the wider scene. Have gone back for playing the campaigns again, may one day try ladder. Base unit micro for the most part still feels good to play, lots of units with varied characteristics that are pretty responsive. Units feel very distinct to control too. -There’s a compendium of really neat micro tricks, not intended by the developers, but challenging and fun to pull off and raise the skill ceiling. Muta and wraith/vulture patrol micro, abusing Carrier leash range, These are cool, I like these on the proviso that any new game replicating them tells new players how to do them. Quake kept strafe strolling for example but I believe Quake Champions had tutorials on how to achieve it. Negatives -A motherfucker to play. Somebody, somewhere has unfortunately lost their life to a homicidal rage induced by Dragoons and their pathing. -Too hard. I’m a semi-competent RTS player, I’m ok with the lack of MBS (many aren’t) and the unit limit (many aren’t). I feel Remastered missed a trick on camera hotkeys though. If I could bind them like I do in SC2 I’d happily trade that for forced BW default hotkeys for units and spells. WC3 Positives - Extended long micro battles with basically every RTS micro technique under the sun. The player with the better micro will generally win an extended encounter through cumulative better execution. There are critical win/lose scenarios that can happen quickly but rarely do you look away for a second and your army is dead. Negatives - Heroes and items. Add a lot to the WC3 dynamic and make it a great, unsurpassed game in the RTS+heroes world, but can lead to snowballing. Also makes trying to emulate WC3’s combat system and style in a game without heroes tricky and less interesting. SC2 Positives - Units are easy to control and really responsive. Pathing is great. Facilitates things like crazy marine splitting vs banelings due to that ease of control. Lots of units that are just fun to use, bio, blink micro, Phoenixes and banshees shoot and scooting are ones I personally enjoy. Easy to control a full army. - Aside from how it pertains to balance or how it impacts on the game on a strategic level SC2 is definitely, probably by a distance the best controlling RTS I’ve played. Negatives - Easy to control a full army. Terrible terrible damage. The polar opposite of WC3. You can have superior micro to your opponent but you make one mistake and you’re wiped, or you’re not looking and you’re wiped. - Clumped fast fire, fast moving ranged DPS is insane if controlled correctly. Stimmed bio assuming equivalent upgrades melts melee due to clumping pumping out the DPS, being able to stutter step quickly etc. Thus the only counter becomes strong AoE which when factored in with ease of controlling armies, clumping and terrible terrible damage you end up with engagements that go too quickly when we scale up the supply count and one mistake or looking at the wrong place can end a game. Suggestions for new Competitive RTS Take the best aspects of all three and attempt to mesh them without going to extremes with any of the mechanics. So the high level micro trickery of BW, some aspect of the longer, sustained battles of WC3 but the ease of control and responsiveness of SC2. I think there’s a sweet spot to be found, and a fantastic game to be made if one does. I would probably perhaps raise the HP:damage output ratio slightly and flip the splitting to clumping relationship from SC2. In SC2 your units naturally clump which really benefits units like marines in DPS output, but also makes AoE almost omnipresent as a counter. If the natural behaviour is for units to spread somewhat it opens a lot of surface area for melee units to operate in. If a good player wants to maximise DPS they can manually clump from a naturally spread state, so the opposite of what we see in SC2 where good players manually split from a naturally clumped stage. | ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
On October 21 2020 01:55 MockHamill wrote: I hope it will be a real RTS like SC2 not a pretend RTS like WC3. SC2 has the perfect balance of macro and micro. If too little macro it becomes shallow like WC3. If too little micro it becomes too similar to Age of Empires, which although being a great game, is not as masterpiece like SC2. Ah yes, “a real RTS” like sc2. WC3 is “shallow”. Age of Empires has “little micro”. I dont know whether i should laugh or cry over your ignorance. | ||
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
On October 21 2020 06:01 WombaT wrote: In a bold, possibly illegal move they just have Protoss in the game to fulfil that role. But what if they managed to design an even Protossier race than SC2's current Protoss? | ||
|
MinesMakeWidows
21 Posts
| ||
|
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
On October 21 2020 05:19 WombaT wrote: WC3 has tons of strategic depth and variety to it, it’s a lot more strategically fluid and improvisational than SC2 can be if builds and openers counter the other guy’s. I personally prefer the mechanical rhythm of SC2’s macro cycles and multitasking, find it quite soothing but I don’t think it necessarily means harder macro = more strategic depth. No. WC3's strategic depth is incredibly limited to to its nature of macro and pace. Tweaking timing in WC3 for example is not as impactful as tweaking timing in BW and SC2. | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
Lastly, Koreans need to play it. I'm biased but if you want real success as a RTS, you need the game to be popular in Korea. Brood War is still more popular in Korea than SC2. I'm not saying that Brood War will ever be usurped in Korea, but having greater backing of Korean gamers would elevate this new RTS. Without Korea taking and running with it, the esports scene for this game will be sorely lacking. | ||
|
Comedy
456 Posts
SC2 macro is already too dumbed down and they initially bandaided that by introducing mundane repetitive tasks that keep the player busy (creep spread, injects, mules, chrono boost). But those don't feel nearly as good as macroing a full terran 3 base mid game with 9 rax or 8 fact. Or having 9 hatcheries as zerg and overhwhelming the opponent etc. They're just reptitive boring tasks. I kind of hope they don't shy from having a lot of macro in the game, I love macro'ing in rts games. (never liked wc3). I feel the wc3 kind of RTS already developed into moba's. Rooting for a real macro/micro game with cool control and micro like there is in bw, not sc2. | ||
|
elKa-ThE-FeArEd
Sweden176 Posts
| ||
|
vhapter
Brazil677 Posts
On October 21 2020 13:29 Wildmoon wrote: No. WC3's strategic depth is incredibly limited to to its nature of macro and pace. Tweaking timing in WC3 for example is not as impactful as tweaking timing in BW and SC2. While you CAN play very straightforward and repetitive styles in wc3, the game DOES have a lot of depth. It just happens to be heavily focused on tactics instead. Of course, that's only natural for a game that revolves around creeping and micro, but it's just a different kind of depth. Back when I still played the game, I would regularly come up with unique creeping patterns and creative tactics to come out on top. I was always trying to be ahead of the meta. In one game, I would creep a camp early on that was seemingly so risky most players wouldn't ever expect it (which made it actually super safe). In the next game, I'd suddenly go for a different pattern that would give me a lead against players trying to prevent me from doing the same game, making them look like clowns. I'd even do stuff like foregoing boots of speed on purpose just to gain a lead creeping a certain camp, then hide and play around the fact I didn't have boots until the cool down was over and finally buy it. It was incredibly rewarding. That said, I do hope this new game will be more similar to starcraft. A less clunky version of bw would be really cool. Something focused on macro with fights in which units don't vanish in a split second, but also without hurdles like "in what ctrl group do I even place these units?". | ||
|
shadow4723
87 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1704 Posts
On October 21 2020 16:22 shadow4723 wrote: Dreamhaven and now this... What did I do to deserve this? I will watch with great interest. theres no guarantee dreamhaven is even making an RTS so its nice to at least have this as a guarantee cuz im not sure aoe4 will be great, i never really like and aoe games. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15956 Posts
| ||
|
TheSky123
15 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25258 Posts
On October 21 2020 13:29 Wildmoon wrote: No. WC3's strategic depth is incredibly limited to to its nature of macro and pace. Tweaking timing in WC3 for example is not as impactful as tweaking timing in BW and SC2. There’s strategic depth in all sorts of games, not just with lower macro requirements but none at all. From MOBAs derived from WC3 to your Counterstrikes of the world. I played a lot of WC3 back in the day, improved a LOT mechanically from playing SC2. Going back to play WC3 and while I had some mechanical advantages, the hurdles for me were all in learning the deeper strategy and tactical nuances of the game. Luckily there’s lot of great streamers to fill those knowledge gaps in these days. Conversely we had an interesting local AoE2 tournament over the summer. The recent SC converts with superior mechanics and the AoE vets who had a superior grasp of strategy and the nuances of the game, made for some interesting clashes of styles and strengths. It’s a really difficult task ahead to build a really viable RTS that keeps all the high skill ceiling stuff, the microability of units and satisfying macro mechanics, while having varied strategical options and not being too brutal for new players. Excited to see what spins on the genre we see going forwards | ||
|
Slydie
1915 Posts
On October 21 2020 15:08 Comedy wrote: couple of people talk about how macro is a bad thing apparently. I love brood war macro, it feels rewarding. SC2 macro is already too dumbed down and they initially bandaided that by introducing mundane repetitive tasks that keep the player busy (creep spread, injects, mules, chrono boost). But those don't feel nearly as good as macroing a full terran 3 base mid game with 9 rax or 8 fact. Or having 9 hatcheries as zerg and overhwhelming the opponent etc. They're just reptitive boring tasks. I kind of hope they don't shy from having a lot of macro in the game, I love macro'ing in rts games. (never liked wc3). I feel the wc3 kind of RTS already developed into moba's. Rooting for a real macro/micro game with cool control and micro like there is in bw, not sc2. They days of BW-like macro is long gone, and things like capping hotkey groups was already old fashioned at the release. Even after playing WC3, where you could select multiple buildings, playing BW felt awful to me from a playability point of view. The same happened with hotkey groups in WC3 after playing SC2. Going backwards in terms of production and unit control is just not an option. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
