EPThttps://frostgiant.com/#blog
It has ex Starcraft people on it and looks like it has the backing of Riot Games? @_@
edit: Tasteless has been in contact with them before this was announced. Nerd chills Tasteless.
New Big RTS Being Built?
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Dude, they literally posted on TL.net https://tl.net/forum/games/564526-introducing-frost-giant-studios | ||
|
PresenceSc2
Australia4032 Posts
https://frostgiant.com/#blog It has ex Starcraft people on it and looks like it has the backing of Riot Games? @_@ edit: Tasteless has been in contact with them before this was announced. Nerd chills Tasteless. | ||
|
LoneYoShi
France1348 Posts
It could be good if they look to sc2 for inspiration ! | ||
digmouse
China6329 Posts
| ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
| ||
Ziggy
South Korea2105 Posts
| ||
|
Elentos
55511 Posts
| ||
|
Serimek
France2274 Posts
| ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
| ||
|
sneakyfox
8216 Posts
| ||
|
TequilaMockingbird
Germany64 Posts
On October 21 2020 00:35 blade55555 wrote: That would be awesome. Hard to get super excited because I remember Day9 working on an RTS a long time ago and that ended up failing and being a different game iirc. Exactly my thoughts upon reading their announcement. | ||
|
ytherik
199 Posts
On October 21 2020 01:19 TequilaMockingbird wrote: Exactly my thoughts upon reading their announcement. Guys behind Frost Giant worked on games like SC2 and WC3 before, so imo it can't be even compared to Day9 working on a game. Those guys actually made the best RTS games ever created, it's hard not get your hopes up on this one. | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1685 Posts
" does not work | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1685 Posts
| ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
On October 21 2020 00:26 LoneYoShi wrote: In its "core values" bit, it mentions "main" and "natural", which are sc2-related terms, right ? It's not mainstream RTS game language ? It could be good if they look to sc2 for inspiration ! StarCraft was the first real esports and that game had resources at specific places and maps were made for natural progress in expanding the economy. Having commentatirs and an active scene helped making standard terms and phrases. It is possible that StarCraft was the origin of these terms, but it is highly likely that SC popularized them. However, they are not unique to SC. Any RTS with resources spread in a similar way use these terms as well. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
| ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
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. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On October 21 2020 01:28 CicadaSC wrote: the link you provide " https://frostgiant.com/#blog " does not work I think the website is down from all the traffic. Here's an article with most of the info: https://venturebeat.com/2020/10/20/frost-giant-studios-raises-4-7-million-for-real-time-strategy-game-revival/ | ||
|
vyzion
308 Posts
| ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 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 haven't played or watched aoe2 very much if you think it has too little micro. | ||
|
palexhur
Colombia730 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 just see that you have no idea about AoE when you said too little micro, let me laugh at your comment lol. | ||
|
xuanzue
Colombia1747 Posts
are we talking about a frostgian release in 2024? On October 21 2020 01:55 MockHamill wrote: If too little micro it becomes too similar to Age of Empires, which although being a great game, is not as masterpiece like SC2. Dunno man, the way AoE2 is growing makes me feel like AoE2 will be way ahead of SC2 in 1 year. also team games in AoE are leagues ahead of team games in SC where the mode is almost non existant. | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1685 Posts
On October 21 2020 02:18 xuanzue wrote: I remember seeing some gameplay of SC2 at begining of 2007, and still the game was released 3.5 years later. are we talking about a frostgian release in 2024? Dunno man, the way AoE2 is growing makes me feel like AoE2 will be way ahead of SC2 in 1 year. also team games in AoE are leagues ahead of team games in SC where the mode is almost non existant. probably something like that. in this video they say the game wont be ready for a while. so dont expect it any time soon! 2024 sounds plausible to me | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
| ||
|
Psyonic_Reaver
United States4336 Posts
| ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
On October 21 2020 02:12 palexhur wrote: I just see that you have no idea about AoE when you said too little micro, let me laugh at your comment lol. I have actually played Age of Empires 1,2 and 3 online for a combined total of more than 20.000 games. Age of Empires 2 is the third best game I have ever played after SC2 and the original Civilization. I stopped playing BW after a year or so and moved on to Age of Empires 1 which I consider to be superior game to BW. Age of Empires does have micro it the form of focus fire and getting the the right units to attack the right units, using high ground etc. But its micro is much more limited compared to SC2. In my experience Age of Empires 2 games was decided at least 80% by macro, while SC2 is more 50/50. Also it took a few minutes before you started interacting with your opponent. Spending the first few minutes collecting sheep and hunting was fun but got repetitive after a while. SC2 has more distinct openers and you start to interact with your opponent much faster. I even played a few games against Maimin Matty and the Sheriff who were the two best players back in the day. I lost all of them though  I would give Age of Empires II 97/100 and SC2 100/100 if I scored them. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
The biggest technical questions are of course about the engine. Do they build on top of Unity/Unreal or make their own engine? Do they stick with deterministic lockstep, do something else entirely (similar to Planetary Annihilation), or some sort of hybrid? How do they design the engine to use multiple cores (maybe by being really smart about how they design an entity-component system?). I really hope they do manage to support multi-threading--it wouldn't be a true 'next-generation RTS' imo if they don't do that. And then the big in-game question is about how they'll design the economy--I assume based on the fact that this is a Blizzard offshoot that it'll be some sort of variant on a traditional RTS economy, but there's room for experimentation even within that. Another in-game question is how they'll support user driven content. And the big out-of-game question is about what the game's monetization model will be. This is all pretty exciting. | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
Though I wonder, with a new studio and a game title many years away with sucess rather uncertain, who is paying for that? | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On October 21 2020 03:35 Redox wrote: Great news! Though I wonder, with a new studio and a game title many years away with sucess rather uncertain, who is paying for that? They found investors (and Riot Games is one of them). (according to: https://venturebeat.com/2020/10/20/frost-giant-studios-raises-4-7-million-for-real-time-strategy-game-revival/) | ||
|
xuanzue
Colombia1747 Posts
holy cow! all the new RTS developers think that hotkeys are not necessary, TaB don't even has hotkeys for buildings. same with a lot of management and tower defense that can be classified as RTS. AoE2 had 2 patches this year that added hotkeys, a feature absolutely necessary for any competitive RTS. features most rts lack: - "reconnect" all the mobas have it. - A team based spectator mode - ingame spectator mode for tournaments (valve here knows wtf2do) monetization models can change a lot the next years. Still any popular game has made profit just with skins. the question is, will frostgiant will be popular enough? also PvE content via dlc. An Idea I've had for any RTS are scenarios GSG alike (paradox games) where you can play 6 hours straight, but it needs an strong AI (maybe alhpastar again) - scripted campaigns are so 1990s | ||
|
Dingodile
4133 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. From your 3 mentioned games I dont want to see much from sc2. frost giant is the name of a company or that rts game? | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1685 Posts
On October 21 2020 03:18 ZigguratOfUr wrote: So the big question about any new RTS game is "what are its differentiators"? Starcraft II has 10 years of extra features beyond the base game (resume from replay, co-op, the map editor, skins, arcade, etc) lan | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
| ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
On October 21 2020 04:24 AbouSV wrote: The hype could hardly be higher I must say. The hype is already ruined for me when I see this game will be released in a few years. | ||
|
aringadingding
474 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25195 Posts
On October 21 2020 01:38 Drfilip wrote: StarCraft was the first real esports and that game had resources at specific places and maps were made for natural progress in expanding the economy. Having commentatirs and an active scene helped making standard terms and phrases. It is possible that StarCraft was the origin of these terms, but it is highly likely that SC popularized them. However, they are not unique to SC. Any RTS with resources spread in a similar way use these terms as well. A friend of mine used the word ‘maynarding’ in an undergrad poem submission because he genuinely thought it was a ‘real’ word. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25195 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. 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. | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
On October 21 2020 04:28 Dingodile wrote: The hype is already ruined for me when I see this game will be released in a few years. I'll keep enjoying SC2 in the meantime, no problem for me :p | ||
|
Comedy
456 Posts
A lot of sc2 people will actually never know how fun bw was to play (despite it's limitations) because of things like micro, especially muta control carried an entire zerg playerbase on it's back in terms of just how fun it was to use them. no deathballs, warpins, and all that jazz <3 | ||
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
-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. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25195 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
Canada16699 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 Ireland25195 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 States1685 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
Germany15937 Posts
| ||
|
TheSky123
15 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25195 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
1913 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. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
SC2 was terrible at launch but got most things right eventually. Let me just outline, besides good gameplay, what I think a next-gen RTS should do to fix SC2's launch mistakes. * A sustainable business model with no buying power for multiplayer. E.g. selling co-op commanders, skins that can be turned off, UI cosmetics, access to in-client streaming or other exclusive features for esport tournaments, some other non-competitive game modes where selling power is fine. I think selling these things will be needed to cross-subsidize multiplayer to keep the latter pure. * Co-op at launch with a leaderboard so that it can be treated semi-competitively. * A spectator mode that allows for in-client streaming and watching of esports, like Dota 2 has. * A ladder system that ranks based on MMR percentile of active players for everyone, not SC2's division points nonsense. * No campaign is needed at launch. I strongly suggest an episodic campaign. Around 25 missions, 5 missions per week over 5 weeks. I don't think a campaign should be constrained to one race, but rather the race of the mission depends on the story. A new campaign every 1-2 years. I'd personally like to see Telltale Games-style story mechanics between campaign missions. * Unlock the full tech tree at the start of the campaign. The WC3/SC2 formula of playing a race campaign starting off weak, gathering allies, unlocking the tech tree than beating the big bad is very tired and formulaic. People know the full tech tree from multiplayer, locking is bad. Missions should unlock SC2 campaign-style power-ups instead. * An evolving tutorial system for multiplayer that is not the campaign. * No expansions, but evolving changes to the game to keep it fresh. The way SC2 handled it is good (a big balance revamp every year, with minor tweaks or balancing in-between), though I think every 2 years instead is probably better to allow people time to figure out the game, then a deliberate design choice to shake up the game, by adding or removing units every 2 years, like an expansion. * Allow people to sell custom maps, parts of custom maps, and include automated matchmaking for custom maps. Perhaps people could recreate a free MOBA financed by selling their own skins for the map. * No cartoony art style. SC2's art style is perfect: semi-realistic. I also strongly prefer a sci-fi setting, possibly with fantasy elements like Warhammer. I'd like to play a super-advanced AI race. Having a campaign, presumably about war and conflict, requires a serious tone, not an overly cartoony art style. | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1685 Posts
On October 22 2020 00:02 paralleluniverse wrote: * No cartoony art style. SC2's art style is perfect: semi-realistic. I also strongly prefer a sci-fi setting, possibly with fantasy elements like Warhammer. I'd like to play a super-advanced AI race. Having a campaign, presumably about war and conflict, requires a serious tone, not an overly cartoony art style. too late, they already said theyre making something that looks like among us/fall guys because "trends" | ||
|
kaoabo
9 Posts
| ||
|
Elmonti
Spain299 Posts
Looks promising, but talking about the next great RTS when it's a company with a "low" budget and a handful of people that made great games 10-15 years ago.... Well, I'm sure they have changed, the way they work has changed, the industry has chenged, the customers (us) have changed, etc. What could be a great RTS 15 years ago doesn't have to be a masterpiece now. Also I'm sure they have WAY less money to work with than what they had when they worked in those great games... All I say is people are reacting like if they were gonna make Starcrarft 3 or W4 or something at that supertop level. Personally, I would consider a huge success if they end up releasing something at the level of CoH 2 for example, like 8,5/10. So putting aside all that overreaction, It's great news to have companies working on RTSs. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 22 2020 01:02 kaoabo wrote: Do you realize that all those Ex-Employees are responsible for all the bad things happen in the past? These are mostly the LotV people, not the WoL people. | ||
|
kaoabo
9 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1685 Posts
On October 22 2020 01:04 Elmonti wrote: To me it feels like people (important people in the scene) are overreacting to this announcement, like way too much hype... I don't know, looks like a "Since SC2 has 2 years more at this level, I NEED to believe they are gonna make its succesor so I can keep playing/casting something" reaction... Looks promising, but talking about the next great RTS when it's a company with a "low" budget and a handful of people that made great games 10-15 years ago.... Well, I'm sure they have changed, the way they work has changed, the industry has chenged, the customers (us) have changed, etc. What could be a great RTS 15 years ago doesn't have to be a masterpiece now. Also I'm sure they have WAY less money to work with than what they had when they worked in those great games... All I say is people are reacting like if they were gonna make Starcrarft 3 or W4 or something at that supertop level. Personally, I would consider a huge success if they end up releasing something at the level of CoH 2 for example, like 8,5/10. So putting aside all that overreaction, It's great news to have companies working on RTSs. The reason people are reacting like its SC3/WC4 is because that is what they are selling it as. They made starcraft 2 what it is today so i think we can trust them on this spiritual successor. Also, the bigger names in the scene like Artosis tasteless pig etc have already talked to the developers. If they have faith, I do as well. | ||
|
kaoabo
9 Posts
| ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1685 Posts
On October 22 2020 01:48 kaoabo wrote: Faith? Its called Marketing, they are being paid. Faith in what? In "We are making the best game, TRUST US!"? i'll assume you didn't read the last part where i mentioned artosis tasteless and pig have talked directly to the devs. Do you think they are being paid to market it? Is it wrong for the community to trust the community leaders' judgement? | ||
|
Bluejava
Sweden135 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1685 Posts
On October 22 2020 02:05 Bluejava wrote: They dont even have a office yet XD they are currently working from home, like most of the world due to covid | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1685 Posts
| ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On October 22 2020 02:05 Bluejava wrote: They dont even have a office yet XD Why would they have an office?  Did you miss the main news of 2020? | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On October 22 2020 02:05 Bluejava wrote: They dont even have a office yet XD The plus side to that (not that I'm celebrating COVID-19), is they will have MUCH less overhead than some company sinking rent money into some overpriced commercial space in LA. | ||
|
Vutalisk
United States680 Posts
I wonder if they even have a core design on what the game remotely looks like. Yet, apparently Khaldor came in and requested Replay System, Observer UI and Match Making. This is like worrying about car insurance when you haven't had a driver license yet. | ||
Waxangel
United States33369 Posts
On October 22 2020 04:50 Vutalisk wrote: I never see such an overhype to the point of absurd like the reactions to this announcement. They just launched the game STUDIO that will make the game. They are just hiring. Their website wasn't even working properly as it crashed during the first day. They are not even closed to launch the game which in term of game development, it may take a few years. I wonder if they even have a core design on what the game remotely looks like. Yet, apparently Khaldor came in and requested Replay System, Observer UI and Match Making. This is like worrying about car insurance when you haven't had a driver license yet. yah, but u never dreamed about how great it would be to drive ur cool car when you were 12  ? | ||
|
kaoabo
9 Posts
| ||
|
BabelFish1
186 Posts
One is more designed around statistical outliers while the other is more in line with how the average person would play and both have their own merits. | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7454 Posts
It is visually attractive, has an amazing interface for full map war and very interesting unit interactions. It is the only RTS I have played that has nullified the importance of rapid click micro while style being fairly micro intensive. And if you watch a replay of the top players, they are astoundingly good at macro and map wide strategic choices. If they aren't going for the responsive units of sc2 or the highly microable units of bw then I hope they strike a balance similar to Ashes - Beautiful game with a incredibly high skill ceiling, but with enough strategic and tactical choices that a slower or handicapped person can still play and win. After sc2 and war3, I have learned to never expect anything good until it arrives. Otherwise you expect an RTS and there are creeps and hero's and stupid shit or sc2, which originally was a very boring and stupid looking game but over time and expansions became one of the greatest RTS ever. I am impressed that they were able to launch such a successful PR campaign, 30 venture capitalist firms focused on games in the US and as they are still attracting investors, people are hyping a game from them. Great way to raise money, but most likely we won't get what we want. Investors and shareholders ruin most creative endeavors. I hope to be wrong and in time get to play a great RTS, but from where I stand, this is just a rich white man's version of a kickstarter campaign. I would love to be wrong. I'm still shocked this PR thread is allowed to be in the sc2 section. Blizzard must love that. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25195 Posts
On October 21 2020 23:40 Slydie wrote: 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. 100%. I absolutely adore BW and WC3. Still play a little casually, and would definitely try a new RTS with similar mechanics if it came out. I think it’s absolute craziness to think you need to replicate those restrictions now and that it won’t put off the next generation of RTS players. I guess the inference is you can’t have a real high ceiling and interesting RTS game without clunky UIs, which I just disagree with. There should be other ways to replicate what made those games great. As a general approach I’d like to see some kind of combination of making the games easier to play, but also making the ‘hard way’ ultimately a better way. Say you automate some elements of macroing, but it is worse over doing it manually. Maybe units build slower, cost more or whatever. Good set of training wheels to have on, but as you hit a certain level on ladder and encounter the manual macroing guys, you have to shift over to compete, but you’ve had fun learning a new game genre up to this point and feel enthused to continue. Or being able to select all army having disadvantages vs having lots of control groups. There already are disadvantages to F2ing in SC2 already like pulling defensive units out of position and the likes. Just spitballing and not actually suggesting automated macroing, just as an example of a concept where making a thing easier could be balanced out by making the harder method better. | ||
|
kaoabo
9 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On October 21 2020 00:35 blade55555 wrote: That would be awesome. Hard to get super excited because I remember Day9 working on an RTS a long time ago and that ended up failing and being a different game iirc. The more RTS's the better, currently we only have aoe4 to be excited about (will for me). To be fair, the RTS Day9 was working on was terrible. I played it in Beta. Can't judge this yet because I haven't seen it, so I'm optimistic. | ||
|
-Kyo-
Japan1926 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
Anyway, best of luck to Monk I hope the game will be amazing | ||
|
Comedy
456 Posts
On October 21 2020 23:40 Slydie wrote: 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. Don't you think it's a possiblity that people enjoy 'macro'ing in and of it self'? Why do you think so many sc1/bw players really hated and couldn't get into SC2 on release? Macro play is something easily overlooked, but feels so damn good in sc1 its more exciting than stutter stepping marines or body blocking a unit with all your peons, just depends who you ask. | ||
|
MinesMakeWidows
21 Posts
| ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On October 22 2020 07:35 BronzeKnee wrote: To be fair, the RTS Day9 was working on was terrible. I played it in Beta. Can't judge this yet because I haven't seen it, so I'm optimistic. Oh for sure, I am cautiously optimistic. I look forward to seeing the gameplay reveal, that'll make or break my hype ;D. They seem very passionate which is awesome, I will be keeping an eye on this. | ||
|
NinjaNight
428 Posts
On October 21 2020 01:48 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Always nice to hear about more people getting into the RTS space. Given typical RTS timelines we'll be lucky if the game gets released by 2023 though. Whats wrong with that? 2023 is just around the corner... 2017-2020 flew by like nothing | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
...3 years. | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
| ||
| ||
