EPTSplash damage is also kind of nice because it gives the illusion of randomness when it isn't at all random.
[Q] How did other RTS games fail? - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
zer0das
United States8519 Posts
Splash damage is also kind of nice because it gives the illusion of randomness when it isn't at all random. | ||
|
lakrismamma
Sweden543 Posts
| ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On January 03 2009 22:46 zer0das wrote: Splash damage isn't a specific damage type. It is either normal, concussive, or explosive. Each unit that does splash damage has one of these types of damage. The means of splash is different, but they are all fairly intuitive... the animations show how they work simply enough. Splash damage is also kind of nice because it gives the illusion of randomness when it isn't at all random. There are different kinds of splash damages, like Line splash(Lurkers, Firebats) and umm what was it called... well, the splash damage type that Tanks and Reavers do. Also, splash damage isn't affected by Dark Swarm even if it's ranged. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
1) design allowing for emerging gameplay. (ie: from engineering bays being floated in front of tanks to further their range, and bugs like 'mineral pushing', to bisu-like mastery of multi-tasking, all pushing the limits of 'what's possible' and what is seen.) This, unfortunately, is hard to 'get right'. The good news is, if you capitalize on the next 2 points, you don't have to 'get it right'. (ie: warcaft 3). 2) an accomodating online lobby. the multiplayer system must be able to facilitate gaming between players in a timely manner, and needs to be bug free! 3) proper post-release support. probably the biggest reason why non-blizzard companies' games 'fail'. The 2 biggest factors to proper post-release support are a) providing tools to the community. With tools they are able to provide better support than can be provided from the host company - as a community has far more passion, talent, money, and time, to invest in such projects than developers can afford (this includes Blizzard). and b) having some form of open communication between developers and their communities. This requires a moderate amount of humility from developers, and a tremendous amount of patience and skill to correctly interpret community feedback. Considering that i've never met someone i've considered 'brilliant' at this skill set, i'm hoping to establish myself as such an individual over the course of my career. good luck to me! my thoughts.  | ||
|
heyitsme
153 Posts
On January 03 2009 23:46 Mora wrote: 3) proper post-release support. Yes. Blizzard turned RoC into a decent game. | ||
|
NeonFlare
Finland1307 Posts
Compare Red Alert 3 to many other non-Blizz games and you'll see it has some potential, though Empire vs Allied MU is still favoring Allied player. I really hope someone would pick up some older RTS's and make a open source project or something to improve their online play, some games that had potential were killed back in time with insufficient experience in setting up proper online interface. | ||
|
darkemperor
Turkey725 Posts
| ||
|
Dalroti
Canada70 Posts
On January 03 2009 13:19 Krigstar wrote: The comparison to FPS doesn't really work since there have been hundreds of FPSs that has been played competitively. You have Halo, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Counter-Strike, Battlefield and a shitload of others. We have only Starcraft and Warcraft 3 really and have only had them since the beginning of time. The reason is that FPS doesn't need to be balanced in the same way an RTS does. Starcraft (and Warcraft 3) are the only games that still after 5 million hours of analyzing every little detail, no race is better than the other and no super-own-all strategy exist. I'm pretty sure the most important aspect of creating a successful RTS in a competitive way is to take it slow and support it until it's perfect. Many other RTS-makers out there makes good games, but just don't give a shit after the user has bought the game. Why bother working on a game years after the release when you can just make a huge marketing campaign to show of explosions and shadow-effects, sell a ton and never have to worry about it again. So basically the problem is that all other RTS-makers aren't Blizzard  Absolutely right. Also doesn't anyone feel that when you buy a Blizzard game (like when I bought SC Battlechest a few months ago), you get this tingle inside? like you know this is the best game ever o_0. Idk could be just me, or I think this is scientific fact. Fun = (Blizzard)(Tingle in your tummy)^2 XD. Anyway yeah i think just being from Blizzard has a big difference. Also to add on to his/her point about the slow thing, it took Blizzard atleat 8 patches to get the game almost perfect (patch 1.08) http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=r4ijwtGCaRg&feature=related The history of starcraft! | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 03 2009 22:26 HaFnium wrote: I'll talk about AoE/AoC First flaw is the lack of control of units. The computer AI is pretty stupid, the unit formation is very annoying in microing. Also it lacks pace (even in fast game mode) Second flaw is the resources system (Map design). The resrouces are spreaded everywhere and there are simply too much resources. You can trade for different resrouces so it is quite hard to run out resources. There are less strategic sites/chokes around the map which makes battle boring. The races are also pretty similar and they play generally in the same way. Curiously, I think Age of Empires II is one of the two non-Blizzard RTS games that could have developed a competitive sphere (the other being Red Alert 2). the formation system is a bit annoying, but I'm pretty sure different or no formations can be toggled in AoE2. As far as the pace goes' I don't think you could be more wrong. Build times on units are faster than in Starcraft, and units die in combat only a little more slowly than SC. If you're referring to the time required to tech between ages, it becomes part of the natural part of the flow of the game after a few games, and it adds to some of the economic strategy, since having your worker production cut off for a long time while you're teching up to the feudal age means you're making a HUGE economic tradeoff for a technological one. The resource system is actually a lot less convoluted than it looks. Yes, you've got 4 resources to deal with, but wood is ubiquitous, food can be farmed, and stone gets only used for a few key structures in the game. That leaves people to fight over gold. Resources can be traded with a market, but using it more than a few times ruins the efficiency of trading, so its an option that you don't want to overuse. The races are similar, but thats part of the style of the game. Given the number of units and unit interactions, I don't consider it a bad thing. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
A marine for example has 40 health and does 5 damage (its unit size and damage type could have been outlined better but this was fixed in warcraft 3). This allows me to look at a marine and say, ok I need 7 marines to kill a zergling in 1 volley. How many games give you this statistical information? | ||
|
Jayson X
Switzerland2431 Posts
On January 03 2009 18:46 Velr wrote: I think Dawn of War was the only game with some sort of *chance* to get competetive. Then Relic did not patch it fast enough. Then Relic put out the first Addon and ruined everything that made Dawn of War interesting. Then Relic put out more Addons and it did not get any better. I agree. Dawn Of War was the only game that pulled me away from starcraft (was on a break there). I did like the gameplay and gory units. Intro anyone? But Relic simply couldn't handle their baby. I remember patch after patch with new, dramatic holes in it. Sometimes shifting the balance like a pendulum because they never saw the big picture of their system. I did like the first one. Problem here was laying a competitive groundbase vs milk the warhammer universe. And you just make more money if you feed the countless warhammer fans. The universe is huge enough and nothing has to be invented basicaly. It's a real pitty. It had the drive and i played it quite alot. But then you think about all the good stuff you miss from starcraft and turn away. I wonder if i feel the same with starcraft 2... | ||
|
alphafuzard
United States1610 Posts
The other reason is that it is an entertaining game to watch. While many other rts games are boring, slow, or completely confusing to watch, starcraft is fairly clear cut, and fast paced. Once a spectator understands the basic ideas of the game, he/she can follow the game without knowing exactly what stimming marines does, or the difference between a ranged or unranged dragoon. | ||
|
liquorice
United States170 Posts
some races constantly win against others, there are about 10 (?) now, they keep adding more from expansion packs the original AoE and AoE II were good games, the only problem was that they were too slow. On another note, starcraft also has a very good mechanic for bases going. Often in other games, resources will be spread across the map, and you set up mini bases to gather from them. The problem with this is that there's no meaningful "expansion" and you can't really focus on taking down a "base." Starcraft's strange bases let them have more strategic importance, instead of choosing whether to chop down more trees, you're deciding to move out to a new base, meaning that you have to defend it and everything. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On January 04 2009 02:25 Fen wrote: I also like how blizzard games give you very clear info about a unit and what it does. A marine for example has 40 health and does 5 damage (its unit size and damage type could have been outlined better but this was fixed in warcraft 3). This allows me to look at a marine and say, ok I need 7 marines to kill a zergling in 1 volley. How many games give you this statistical information? Seriously, they deal 6. | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9109 Posts
WC3 definitely had a better feel to it than Red Alert 2 and I bet if i'd started with WC3 I might've gotten really into it but I just wasn't interested enough in it and from watching some replays and VODs of WC3 matches it looked like it was confusing and not as clean as SC. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
The first refers to things like the online lobby, ladders, etc. Players need a place to play, and no one is going to make some independent server (like the iccup we have now) for a game that just came out. The publisher/developer needs to support the community first. The second...SC is what it is, especially in Korea, because it isn't just a testament of how well you can play a game. SC requires that you know the ins and outs of the game, but players are also respected for the immense amount of mental and physical dexterity they possess to be able to play the game. Most other RTSs out there lack the mechanical aspect that SC has, which is what I honestly think sets SC apart from other games more than anything else. One MAJOR aspect of mechanics in an RTS is APM, and the button clicking that goes along with it. Many, many games out there try to streamline the UI to be as mouse-friendly and low-APM as possible, it would seem. SC balances between the keyboard/mouse a bit more I guess you could say. You want to do the least with your mouse, and the most with your keyboard. You want higher and higher APM so you can do more at once. Your hand speed is your limit once you've begun to understand the game. SC's UI was not designed to be convenient, but was designed to be functional. Another major aspect are macro/micro stuffs...from the perspective of mechanics, I refer specifically to the execution of micro and macro. This also has a very steep learning curve. Even between progamers there are huge gaps, and you can plainly see differences between the more macro and micro-oriented players. The UI gives no breaks or cute little gimmicks to streamline this for you. You have to take control and set all your units up yourself: keeping marines tight, or spreading them against lurkers; sending in goons to take the first tank volley, then rushing in your zealots; etc. This sets apart the practicing player that much more. Even macro...I don't want to start an MBS topic, but it is undeniable that a huge part of BW, especially at the competitive level, comes down to macro. This is what sets apart players like Best, forGG and Flash. Once again, SC does not cut corners here, and the UI is functional, not convenient. HUGE differences between players, or perhaps just games, can be seen based on their attention to macro. I mean...there's no easy sidebar like in C&C, or MBS like SC2 will have (sry...I couldn't help it T_T ), or whatever. The point is, making the game require this level of attention to simply executing whatever you want to do opens up a whole 'nother level of competition that most other RTSs simply lack. Add that on top of the humongous amount of strategical depth inherent in the game, good pacing/graphics/etc, is not too hard to follow even if you're a beginner, and you have a game that has potential as a competitive esport. On January 04 2009 02:25 Fen wrote: I also like how blizzard games give you very clear info about a unit and what it does. A marine for example has 40 health and does 5 damage (its unit size and damage type could have been outlined better but this was fixed in warcraft 3). This allows me to look at a marine and say, ok I need 7 marines to kill a zergling in 1 volley. How many games give you this statistical information? Marines do 6 damage, and you only need 6 to kill a zergling in one volley. (: | ||
|
Xenixx
United States499 Posts
| ||
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
The main problem with DOW is that it doesn't have the control of starcraft, alot of the skill from starcraft comes from beign able to control individual untis, and do things such as hold position ect to break the engine. It can easily go the other way. In the game preceding it, Relic's Homeworld, had individual unit control and glitches is in full bloom, and this resulted in a degenerate game where the only units are scouts, interceptors, L.corvette, Heavy Vett, Mutigun Vett and Support frigate. The entire game is broken because of the power of scout micro, which is a pattern of: F2-F3-F4-k-z-F9-F6-F2.....which allows fighters to circle strafe. This allowed scouts to beat everything larger than a corvette and the entire thing ends up like ZvZ in starcraft, except in this case the mutalisk can be built at the very beginning of the game. I remember reading "strategy" guides on Homeworld and Homeworld Cata and "mastering the rhythm of f2345" is considered a critical skill. While it might be a "skill", if 95% of the game is decided on the skill of unit micro of a single unit type and in a very uninteresting manner of hotkey spam, it would rightly turn many people off from MP and make matches rather boring. (just like ZvZ !) Having just created a game that reduces to muta-island UMS, and the 40k background, it is understandable why they would want to lockdown unit controls to prevent that sort of thing. Whether they've gone overboard is unknown due to balance issues. Intense unit micro in Starcraft is useful but not necessary.... How is having weapon classes and unique modifiers going to make LESS of a pro scene? Sufficient numbers of semi-casuals wanting to watch others play is more important than the hyper competitive gamers to a the pro scene..... If no one could understand wtf is going on, that group won't exist. | ||
|
JudgeMathis
Cuba1286 Posts
Btw, Wc2 was very imbalanced. Everyone plays Orc. -_-; Also, the fan base is the real reason why some RTS succeed or not. | ||
|
ManWithCheese
Canada246 Posts
On January 04 2009 05:41 JudgeMathis wrote: Warcraft 3 is the closes thing to Starcraft. Where Warcraft lacks, it makes up for. Yes, you can't macro that much. But, to replace that a Warcraft 3 player has to think about where the player is creeping, if he has an expansion. You can't really sit here, and say "SHIT BECAUSE WC3 MACRO IS LIMITED, SHIT SUCKS." Btw, Wc2 was very imbalanced. Everyone plays Orc. -_-; Also, the fan base is the real reason why some RTS succeed or not. Balance was simple and great in warcraft 2. If you take 2 players of high apm and equal skill and throw them into a large scale battle the human player will win, while you can bloodlust all your ogres it doesn't do any good when half of them couldn't attack till others died meanwhile the human player is spamming heal on his front line, the orc would then try to counteract this by increasing how big the front line is. Shame more people didn't buy the battle.net edition as it was a blast to play. | ||
| ||
