David Kim, former lead multiplayer designer on StarCraft II, is working on a real-time strategy game at new studio Uncapped Games.
Kim gave some interesting quotes in the article that suggests the direction Uncapped's RTS may go in.
"RTS has been in this place where a lot of the very basic and core fundamental things in the game have not yet been modernized, so it's very difficult to play an RTS," he says. "You need hundreds of actions per minute to play a competitive RTS game.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
While those quotes are bound to make hardcore StarCraft fans bristle, he offered a more nuanced comment in another interview with Wowhead.
At the esport level, players being able to show off their incredible micro / high APM skills that normal players can look up to and learn from, is awesome. We want to keep this while creating a game that is the easiest to get into for any PC gamer. One example of a high level goal here is to allow players to play the way they want in terms of APM intensive armies vs. low APM armies. We will have more specifics on this as well as other specific ideas to achieve our goal once we prove out more of our game vision.
Jason Hughes, Uncapped's lead producer and another Blizzard veteran, repeated a sentiment we've heard a lot lately, particularly from Frost Giant:
"That doesn't mean dumbed down or simplified," Hughes notes. "That just means lowering the barrier to entry for more people to expose them to what's great about RTS games."
Their goal seem noble, but probably controversial for many SC fans. I'm skeptical how they will manage to achieve their goal but would probably be great for RTS overall if they succeed.
It some what seems to me that SC2 devs leaving Blizzard caused a race for making RTS that can replace SC2 as its support ends. So in five years situation can be very interesting.
On July 01 2021 03:40 Nakajin wrote: Thanks David Kim
wow I was just about to post a public note about refraining from low-effort trolling about david kim
If I beat you to it, can't it be considered high-effort trolling?
But more seriously, glad to see there's a lot of people going back to RTS games, it's a lot similar to what happened with isometric RPG, a bunch of people deciding at the same time to start non-related indy project and it worked great from them, hopefully it will be just as good to us.
I really do trust and believe David Kim when he said he wanted to make a new RTS for 10 years. He always seemed like a passionate fella. And as he was someone who was GM with random I trust he can make a great RTS
I guess it’s nice if more studios with former Blizzard employees wanna make RTS, we could have another great RTS with that much competition, hopefully!
I'm optimistic about this. DK is one of the most experienced RTS designers and i'm sure throughout his tenure of blizzard/exiting the sc2 team that he has realized what gamers actually want from an rts. Here is to hoping for a high skill ceiling rts!
"That doesn't mean dumbed down or simplified," Hughes notes. "That just means lowering the barrier to entry for more people to expose them to what's great about RTS games."
Curious what that actually means. Guessing they are dumbing down the macro / automating it.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game.
Any gamer can play Starcraft. The thing is, that there's always somebody who can do all of the things faster, whether you dumb the game down or not.
Actually it's not that fun to do repetitive things like hatchery injection or chrono boosting nexuses a few times per minute and building new bases/structures as much as you can. So I think it's time to make RTS less mechanically based and more entertaining and it's good to see that our beloved oldies/veterans moving to that direction finally .
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game.
Any gamer can play Starcraft. The thing is, that there's always somebody who can do all of the things faster, whether you dumb the game down or not.
Actually it's not that fun to do repetitive things like hatchery injection or chrono boosting nexuses a few times per minute and building new bases/structures as much as you can. So I think it's time to make RTS less mechanically based and more entertaining and it's good to see that our beloved oldies/veterans moving to that direction finally .
Games are only as entertaining as the players make them.
The ultimate RTS would have some aspects from SC2 but with 3 major differences.
1. Speed should matter less SC2 is a great game but speed being so critical is its biggest flaw. If being faster just gave you slight advantage instead of an insane advantage it would be awesome. Suddenly you could outmaneuver people that are faster than you if you outthink them.
2. Games should never be lost in an instant A disruptor shot should never make you lose the game. Not having a scan when a DT should shows up should be bad but not critical. Basically losses should be the result of many things accumulated, never of a single mistake.
3. Every composition should have a counter that works for normal players There should not be any unit composition like Carrier/Void Rays that just roll over normal player and takes much more skill to counter than to use. Basically there should be a balance between how easy something is to use and to counter that is fair on both sides.
Warcraft 3 rewarded micro too much. SC2 rewards multitasking and speed to much.
I just wished someone developed a RTS with distinct factions, deep strategies and varied gameplay but where macro, micro and multitasking just gave you slight advantages instead of massive ones, and where no mistake was as punishing as they are in SC2.
I think Age of Empires in many ways solved all this much better than SC2. Speed matter in Age of Empires but it is not the insane advantage that is in SC2. I just wished the civs were more distinct, which the seem to be in Age of Empires 4.
Basically SC2 is a great game but also deeply flawed. It is very far from the ultimate RTS.
The ultimate RTS would keep the fun aspects of RTS (macro, micro, tactics and strategy) but remove the infuriating parts and make the game less mechanically demanding for normal players.
The macro part should be about making smart macro decisions (please study Age of Empires since they excel in this area), not just executing repetitive key presses (spreading creep).
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game.
Any gamer can play Starcraft. The thing is, that there's always somebody who can do all of the things faster, whether you dumb the game down or not.
Actually it's not that fun to do repetitive things like hatchery injection or chrono boosting nexuses a few times per minute and building new bases/structures as much as you can. So I think it's time to make RTS less mechanically based and more entertaining and it's good to see that our beloved oldies/veterans moving to that direction finally .
And then you get Dawn of War 2, which is utterly boring (to me).
Sorry, I will believe this idea is realistic once I see it implemented. I don't think making games easy for everyone to play goes hand in hand without dumbing down the game in one way or another and lowering the skill cap. This is all nice talk that has been around for over a decade in several genres and never worked. Look at the Frost Giant stuff. It's basically a lot of flowery words and the idea to make something accessible for everyone with no substance to back up any of it. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this but yeah, the fact that this has been regurgitated dozens of times and never worked in the slightest doesn't wake the optimist in me.
I loved David Kim when he worked for SC2. His approach to balancing the game was always great. He would take the ladder stats and the pro stats, and try to make patches that are good for both parties.
The last few years of balance patch forgot ladder players entirely and focused on top 20 players in the world a bit too much. (Widowmine buffs, disruptors revert, void ray/battery changes...)
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
I mean has anyone ever made an RTS where the fastest player is the best player? Seems like a straw man. I would've thought if that was any game, it's BW, but of course anyone who has followed BW knows that would be an awful description of it.
I think probably the two most famous players of all time are boxer and flash, who were both extremely strategic players... Most famous protoss player probably Bisu? For revolutionizing PvZ
It just seems weird to make it a goal for competitive play to not require extremely good mechanics and fast play. I think the other new RTS's in development still want that for competitive play and are figuring out ways to make their games more enjoyable for slower players. Maybe they figure RTS players will go to the other new RTS's in development and they're going to try to capture more players from other genres.
tbh a higher skill floor RTS sounds great, I never really got into SC2 beyond the campaign stuff because its so daunting. All of the shit you have to do is stressful, it feels like youre never doing shit right youre just doing shit less wrong and its kind of a feel bad.
I've always kind of wanted to try a game more on the scope of like, a MOBA but you control every character on your side of the field, like Lost Vikings from HotS but with more units.
I look forward to seeing how they manage to innovate RTS'
"That doesn't mean dumbed down or simplified," Hughes notes. "That just means lowering the barrier to entry for more people to expose them to what's great about RTS games."
Curious what that actually means. Guessing they are dumbing down the macro / automating it.
Well. Sc2's macro mechanics are artificially making the game harder. It's not a bad idea to get rid of that kind of stuff. There were mods out there that removed mules injects and chronoboost and those work just fine. In Sc2 they just made the decision to put them in because they didn't want the BW crowd to feel like the game was too easy, with uncapped unit selection / Rallypoints / etc.
On July 01 2021 05:38 Zambrah wrote: tbh a higher skill floor RTS sounds great, I never really got into SC2 beyond the campaign stuff because its so daunting. All of the shit you have to do is stressful, it feels like youre never doing shit right youre just doing shit less wrong and its kind of a feel bad.
I've always kind of wanted to try a game more on the scope of like, a MOBA but you control every character on your side of the field, like Lost Vikings from HotS but with more units.
I look forward to seeing how they manage to innovate RTS'
That's on you man, you are missing out. RTS lives and breathes APM and that's true for all the good ones. If you remove the macro aspect of the game by automation or something along those lines you are basically leaving the boundaries of the genre. Besides, once you get past your anxiety and just enjoy the game for what it is, it becomes incredibly rewarding. I have never had a win in a Moba or shooter feel even remotely as well-earned as a win in sc2.
There actually are titles out there that went for the more "strategic" approach, but none of them have even come close to being as fun a game as the sc series
"That doesn't mean dumbed down or simplified," Hughes notes. "That just means lowering the barrier to entry for more people to expose them to what's great about RTS games."
Curious what that actually means. Guessing they are dumbing down the macro / automating it.
Well. Sc2's macro mechanics are artificially making the game harder. It's not a bad idea to get rid of that kind of stuff. There were mods out there that removed mules injects and chronoboost and those work just fine. In Sc2 they just made the decision to put them in because they didn't want the BW crowd to feel like the game was too easy, with uncapped unit selection / Rallypoints / etc.
the whole game is artificial man
the macro mechanics are there to put more strategy into macro and econ management
"That doesn't mean dumbed down or simplified," Hughes notes. "That just means lowering the barrier to entry for more people to expose them to what's great about RTS games."
Curious what that actually means. Guessing they are dumbing down the macro / automating it.
Well. Sc2's macro mechanics are artificially making the game harder. It's not a bad idea to get rid of that kind of stuff. There were mods out there that removed mules injects and chronoboost and those work just fine. In Sc2 they just made the decision to put them in because they didn't want the BW crowd to feel like the game was too easy, with uncapped unit selection / Rallypoints / etc.
isn't that what totalbiscuit tried to do with one of his mods?
On July 01 2021 05:38 Zambrah wrote: tbh a higher skill floor RTS sounds great, I never really got into SC2 beyond the campaign stuff because its so daunting. All of the shit you have to do is stressful, it feels like youre never doing shit right youre just doing shit less wrong and its kind of a feel bad.
I've always kind of wanted to try a game more on the scope of like, a MOBA but you control every character on your side of the field, like Lost Vikings from HotS but with more units.
I look forward to seeing how they manage to innovate RTS'
That's on you man, you are missing out. RTS lives and breathes APM and that's true for all the good ones. If you remove the macro aspect of the game by automation or something along those lines you are basically leaving the boundaries of the genre. Besides, once you get past your anxiety and just enjoy the game for what it is, it becomes incredibly rewarding. I have never had a win in a Moba or shooter feel even remotely as well-earned as a win in sc2.
There actually are titles out there that went for the more "strategic" approach, but none of them have even come close to being as fun a game as the sc series
"Just stop not enjoying the game and you'll enjoy it more," I mean yes, that is true, if I found the way playing competitive SC2 makes me feel less bad I might enjoy it more, at the same time I have an infinite array of other things to spend my time on and I'm perfectly content to enjoy watching SC2. I'm not missing out on anything because I don't enjoy playing competitive SC2, its too hard for me to find enjoyable without probably absurd time investments (even then I've seen how Masters - GM players are, they also seem to kind of hate playing the game.)
If David Kim's EZmode RTS comes out I hope its more my speed and something I'll be able to enjoy. Hopefully it brings in the other low effort casual type gamers who want to play against each other without having to invest a ton of time into it and it can help revitalize the RTS genre and give me some more fun games to play
The only realistic way of making the RTS genre more popular again is making the games easier to play mechanically.
Having to make lost of interesting decisions in real time is good. Requiring 300 APM just to execute those decisions is bad.
I wonder if someone could make a RTS with lots of macro, micro and strategical decisions with real depth, but where APM over say 60 would make no difference.
Requiring BW or SC2 APM to play the game will forever lock RTS into a hard core niche played by 0.01% of gamers.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game.
Any gamer can play Starcraft. The thing is, that there's always somebody who can do all of the things faster, whether you dumb the game down or not.
Actually it's not that fun to do repetitive things like hatchery injection or chrono boosting nexuses a few times per minute and building new bases/structures as much as you can. So I think it's time to make RTS less mechanically based and more entertaining and it's good to see that our beloved oldies/veterans moving to that direction finally .
I think it's more of having your actions matter. For example, having to individually send your workers to gather minerals in SC:BW is "difficult" but trivial and frustrating, and I wholeheartedly support being able to rally straight to minerals in SC2, but it does reveal that there's not much to do in the very early game. I think that's what they were trying to correct by boosting starting workers to 12 in LotV, but that comes with its own problems where important moments happen so early players can't scout them to react.
I've watched some competitive Age of Empires II recently, and while I don't think the game is as great overall, I do really like how the variety in resource sources at the beginning of the game forces you to do things that actually feel like they matter.
I think it's the feeling of making decisions that really matters, more than the number of actions and how "difficult" they are to execute. That's my perspective anyway.
Just a few things I want to mention in regards to some things said in this thread.
Making the game easier won't make the rts genre more popular. Bw was hard and that was popular. Sc2 during WoL was hard and that was incredibly popular.
You want the game to become popular?
Have real balanced patches every month like LoL. Adding new units all the time or altering how units work each patch etc to keep things fresh, interesting and exciting. LoL does this and the player base loves it. It keeps the playerbase engaged and keeps the game evolving so it doesn't become stale.
Have a real esports infrastructure that is ran by professionals like how riot games does it for LoL. Have real qualifications for becoming a "pro gamer".
AOE is much less apm intensive aka easier to play and that game series is not popular at all, especially when compared to starcraft. AOE is honestly a pile of heaping garbage.
Computer games that are played in real time vs other players require skill. That's just the nature of the reality of the beast. It will always come down to who reacts the fastest while making the best/optimal/proper decision in any given situation. That's just how it is. RTS isn't for everyone and that's fine but this whole notion that making the game easier to play would somehow make the game more popular is 100% nonsense. Video Games are either in real time or turn based and if you aren't fast enough to cut it during real time then maybe turn based games are more up your alley.
I mean think about it, If they made the next rts easy to play, How the heck could anyone justify competitive play when the game is easy/requires no skill? It would make no sense.
What some people are suggesting in this thread would be the equivalent of adding AIM ASSIST to every shooter game just to make it easier for the player, which takes away the fun and satisfaction from actually getting kills.
You know what game is incredibly easy but isn't poplar? Tic tac toe. Everyone has tried it, it's too easy hence why it's not popular. It's too easy hence there is no satisfaction from getting a win. It doesn't matter lol.
Making video games/rts games easier is not going to magically generate more customers. Making a quality game that requires skill will.
The think the biggest issue lies with the player themself, specifically underutilization of will power to play faster. Increase your will power and play faster. It's a choice.
Sc2 already brought down the mechanical skill level from BW..now they wanna do it more? I guess they want it this way for longevity. In my opinion the skill level required to be good will be very low this way and thus less rewarding. Maybe I’ll be wrong.
On July 01 2021 05:05 MockHamill wrote: The ultimate RTS would have some aspects from SC2 but with 3 major differences.
1. Speed should matter less SC2 is a great game but speed being so critical is its biggest flaw. If being faster just gave you slight advantage instead of an insane advantage it would be awesome. Suddenly you could outmaneuver people that are faster than you if you outthink them.
2. Games should never be lost in an instant A disruptor shot should never make you lose the game. Not having a scan when a DT should shows up should be bad but not critical. Basically losses should be the result of many things accumulated, never of a single mistake.
3. Every composition should have a counter that works for normal players There should not be any unit composition like Carrier/Void Rays that just roll over normal player and takes much more skill to counter than to use. Basically there should be a balance between how easy something is to use and to counter that is fair on both sides.
Warcraft 3 rewarded micro too much. SC2 rewards multitasking and speed to much.
I just wished someone developed a RTS with distinct factions, deep strategies and varied gameplay but where macro, micro and multitasking just gave you slight advantages instead of massive ones, and where no mistake was as punishing as they are in SC2.
I think Age of Empires in many ways solved all this much better than SC2. Speed matter in Age of Empires but it is not the insane advantage that is in SC2. I just wished the civs were more distinct, which the seem to be in Age of Empires 4.
Basically SC2 is a great game but also deeply flawed. It is very far from the ultimate RTS.
The ultimate RTS would keep the fun aspects of RTS (macro, micro, tactics and strategy) but remove the infuriating parts and make the game less mechanically demanding for normal players.
The macro part should be about making smart macro decisions (please study Age of Empires since they excel in this area), not just executing repetitive key presses (spreading creep).
Just a few things I want to mention in regards to some things said in this thread.
Making the game easier won't make the rts genre more popular. Bw was hard and that was popular. Sc2 during WoL was hard and that was incredibly popular.
You want the game to become popular?
Have real balanced patches every month like LoL. Adding new units all the time or altering how units work each patch etc to keep things fresh, interesting and exciting. LoL does this and the player base loves it. It keeps the playerbase engaged and keeps the game evolving so it doesn't become stale.
Have a real esports infrastructure that is ran by professionals like how riot games does it for LoL. Have real qualifications for becoming a "pro gamer".
AOE is much less apm intensive aka easier to play and that game series is not popular at all, especially when compared to starcraft. AOE is honestly a pile of heaping garbage.
Computer games that are played in real time vs other players require skill. That's just the nature of the reality of the beast. It will always come down to who reacts the fastest while making the best/optimal/proper decision in any given situation. That's just how it is. RTS isn't for everyone and that's fine but this whole notion that making the game easier to play would somehow make the game more popular is 100% nonsense. Video Games are either in real time or turn based and if you aren't fast enough to cut it during real time then maybe turn based games are more up your alley.
I mean think about it, If they made the next rts easy to play, How the heck could anyone justify competitive play when the game is easy/requires no skill? It would make no sense.
What some people are suggesting in this thread would be the equivalent of adding AIM ASSIST to every shooter game just to make it easier for the player, which takes away the fun and satisfaction from actually getting kills.
While patches that add units and stuff would be harder to do with RTS, I totally agree with you. Massive and frequent patches are something that could keep people playing if the game is fun to begin with.
As a slow player I wouldn't mind an RTS game that requires less clicking than SC2 from the start of the game until you max out your army, but I'm not sure it will matter unless the new RTS is inherently slower overall: as long as it is real time, people who can do stuff fast will have more time for strategic thinking no matter what I suppose, right?
Also, I do think it is funny to see David Kim indirectly axing the game he spent so many years working on. Makes me wonder if he had some kind of revelation.
I don't know about anyone else, but APM was not the thing that intimidated me as a new player, it's the fog of war and the complete lack of information that scared me. I also have zero desire to play a game any casual player can do well at if they just watch a meta-relevant YouTube video on what to do.
All of the great games are hard to play even when you know what to do and that's why they endure decades in an industry that is quick to forget. I really wish the focus on how to lower the barrier of entry was on how to best educate players how to play multiplayer in a stress free, non-competitive environment, not by stripping out skill differentiators until the winner is who knows the most. We could just hold a quiz show and award the winner that way if it's supposed to be all about knowing what to do.
New players suck because there is no concept of build orders, no scouting, it's all information related. When pro's can play at masters / GM level with only a mouse, the issue is not mechanics. APM is how we execute strategy; if you don't know what you're doing, you have nothing to execute and you stare at the screen = your APM is low. Teach players what to do and that all starts to go away.
I want to watch pro games and wonder "how can they do that?" in addition to "they're so smart". I want to feel like I can always improve my own game by improving myself. Endlessly. I want another RTS I can play for 10 years, just as SC2 has been my thing for the previous.
If they want the strategy to be more prominent in the game, they need to change the units/upgrades etc up more often. Imagine how much more diverse SC2 games would be if there were major re-balancing and design changes every year?
On July 01 2021 05:38 Zambrah wrote: tbh a higher skill floor RTS sounds great, I never really got into SC2 beyond the campaign stuff because its so daunting. All of the shit you have to do is stressful, it feels like youre never doing shit right youre just doing shit less wrong and its kind of a feel bad.
I've always kind of wanted to try a game more on the scope of like, a MOBA but you control every character on your side of the field, like Lost Vikings from HotS but with more units.
I look forward to seeing how they manage to innovate RTS'
That's on you man, you are missing out. RTS lives and breathes APM and that's true for all the good ones. If you remove the macro aspect of the game by automation or something along those lines you are basically leaving the boundaries of the genre. Besides, once you get past your anxiety and just enjoy the game for what it is, it becomes incredibly rewarding. I have never had a win in a Moba or shooter feel even remotely as well-earned as a win in sc2.
There actually are titles out there that went for the more "strategic" approach, but none of them have even come close to being as fun a game as the sc series
FWIW, SC2 gameplay is quite literally built on automation. You simply cannot play well without "set it and forget it" play that involves pre-programmed unit and building actions that in turn relies on AI pathing and attack mechanisms, which is....automation. The question isn't whether there should be automation in RTS--there always has been and always will be. The question is how to give all the meaningful tactical and strategic choices to the player, while minimizing actions that don't necessarily confer much unique strategic and tactical value. Those can and should be automated or, better yet, eliminated. That doesn't mean that you need to make the game into some slow, plodding, "strategic" psuedo-turn-based abomination. But it also doesn't mean you need arbitrary mechanical challenges and barriers in the gameplay.
Example: I have never understood why supply buildings/units (depots, pylons, and overlords) are important from a game design or player experience perspective. (Supply caps might be needed to prevent turtling, but that's a different matter.) Sure, supply buildings/units have some tactical purpose: they allow you to build more units, and sniping your opponent's can sometimes supply block them. But doing so doesn't confer any *unique* tactical purpose because resources are the natural constraint designed to limit your ability to build more units. Literally nobody thinks about supply macro cycles almost ever in any strategic or tactical sense other than when their cognitive load got taxed too hard and they missed a cycle so are annoyed with themselves. And it's almost always more beneficial tactically to try to snipe workers than supply buildings/units, because as noted resources are the *true* constraint on building in RTS (and pretty much any other game). These things are just basically pointless annoying things you need to do so you can do the things that are actually fun and strategically and tactically beneficial to do.
People will defend this kind of stuff because that's how it's always been and you need the game to be high APM, mechanically etc. etc. etc. But don't confuse grinding, habit-formation, routine-development, and artificial mechanical challenges with strategic and tactical depth. Not the same...
The issue I see with RTS is, that most of the time you cannot really outrule mechanics. You can obviously try to make the game easier from a mechanical standpoint but I feel strategic decisions benefit from time (i.e round based) while real time provides a focus on mechanics.
Obviously thats not as black and white as I described but I hope people still get what I am trying to say. Someone here wrote you can make it easy and dumb it down, but someone will eventually still be quicker at an easier level. The question here is, will the game still be interesting?
The major flaw in RTS I am currently seeing is that it holds no or next to no initiative for others to play with you. Going to play CS? League? Dota?
"Hey, lets try out XYZ together.."
I am aware COOP and teamgames is a thing, but thats also not what made RTS successful. If there is no iniative for people that like 1v1 to get others to try out the game too, it will always be smaller (note: not inferior) to FPS/moba which is alright. You need to not only modernize a game but also give iniative for people to play it together or alongside each other.
If there is one game I enjoy while I still play it alone ALONGSIDE others is Path of Exile. I feel group play isn't the strong point of it but its fun to hang out and talk about it, play alongside and enjoy the evenings. Thats really impossible for SC2. Or at least only possible to a small extent since you need to be so focused when playing it.
Edit: I believe the key to actually providing strategic success to a RTS game you need to be able to provide the players with choices that matter. Choices that actually diversify a matchup and player from another. In Broodwar against Zerg its viable to play:
SK Terran (vessel+marines) Bio/Tank Mech
Obviously thats just a small scale of what I want to express, but strategic aspect in RTS at least for me should be about the route you want to take. Be it hero routes in Warcraft or tech / upgrades choices. For me it could go even as far as locking yourself out of certain choices during gameplay (if you take one route) or picking a kind of "loadout" like Dropzone showed.
"At the esport level, players being able to show off their incredible micro / high APM skills that normal players can look up to and learn from, is awesome. We want to keep this while creating a game that is the easiest to get into for any PC gamer. One example of a high level goal here is to allow players to play the way they want in terms of APM intensive armies vs. low APM armies. We will have more specifics on this as well as other specific ideas to achieve our goal once we prove out more of our game vision.
We believe it’s a mistake to simplify the game for the sake of making the game easier to play. Our goal is to remove the “tedious clicks” required to play a traditional RTS, but we absolutely don’t want to remove any clicks that are fun to play with and master over time.
Here are example high level questions we have for ourselves: • What are the tedious, unnecessary things that just have been done in RTS because it’s always been this way?"
I, for one, welcome our no-supply count overlords (or are they really overlords then?)
I understand the necessity to... simplify... the mechanics, so it's more broadly accessible, but honestly, what makes SC/SC2 awesome to watch and fun is that it's got so much going on at all times. I personally find the super precise micro stuff just really exciting, and then knowing that they're taking care of 10 other things all the while.
Please refrain from writing low-effort troll posts about David Kim
can i make a low effort praise post? I think David Kim is a brilliant game designer. It is no mistake that Kim was able to climb the ranks through Blizzard while geniuses like Morhaime and Pardo were running the show.
i look forward to checking out any game David Kim designs.
I got nothing bad to say about David here. I hope he can produce his vision into something successful. Would be an interesting idea if it works out for the genre.
On July 01 2021 12:42 Gescom wrote: ^ yeh for real. Davey is a god.
Wasnt he responsible for the dreadful Swarm Host and "Protoss-Bullshit" Era? Didnt Morhaimel italarry said: "Everyone should be able to play the game, even your Grandma!"?
On July 01 2021 12:53 BigFan wrote: I'll probably at least check out what they make much like the other studios, but I can't imagine it'll surpass BW for me.
For me Warcraft 3 was much more entertaining than Starcraft 2 which I play nowadays nevertheless . Warcraft 3 is less mechanical and more alive: health, magic fountains, artifacts, heroes and critters camps. No need to build N+1 bases and having to set up sophisticated keyboard layout (rapid fire stuff is not about skill). The good thing games become more entertaining and at the same time more easy to control and faster to play/watch. Boring Starcraft 1 needs a lot of camera hotkeys and 0-9 control groups and super fast clicking. Starcraft 2 is much more interesting and huge improvement over Starcraft 1. So I believe a new RTS would modernize those aspects and improve boring stuff like building bases and clicking everywhere without putting efforts to think. All in All, Starcraft is not RTS, it's rather RTC (Real Time Clicking).
I think many people do not realize that in mutiplayer, even in games like Stellaris or Europa Universalis IV APM does matter. When You cant pause, or Your pause options are limited and time flows in real time it is always advantegous to do things fast.
APM/speed/execution seem like a feature of the "Real Time" part of RTS, You cant realy make it go away. Even in games that on surface do not have dexterity component player who does things faster usualy have advantage. The game would need to be extremly slow for speed to be of no importance in "real time" setting.
we feel that it's important to disclose that while Uncapped Games is funded by Tencent, who is also the parent company of Wowhead, the two companies are completely separate and independently operated
yeah, that's a red flag right here. It's all good until at some point Tencent will take over. China ain't funding and buying western game companies thru Tencent because they love games, they do it because they love data, especially about western consumers. And more importantly they want to control the narrative and sway the views of young(er) generations. And we're not talking about a short time strategy either. They have planned this out for decades to come. Anyone thinking otherwise is either naive or delusional.
On July 01 2021 19:08 Silvanel wrote: I think many people do not realize that in mutiplayer, even in games like Stellaris or Europa Universalis IV APM does matter. When You cant pause, or Your pause options are limited and time flows in real time it is always advantegous to do things fast.
APM/speed/execution seem like a feature of the "Real Time" part of RTS, You cant realy make it go away. Even in games that on surface do not have dexterity component player who does things faster usualy have advantage. The game would need to be extremly slow for speed to be of no importance in "real time" setting.
Sure it helps, but in a game like SC2 it is more than a help. If two players know *what* to do in each situation and can make the decisions at the same speed, but one player has much faster hands, they will almost always win the long game very decisively, even with a few additional better decisions (early game not so much, there it really feels like 1 good choice or reaction over your opponent can be decisive).
Speed *should* be an advantage in an RTS, but with mechanics like creep and fine-grained supply management, it becomes a bit much. Once you're on 3 bases and both players have an army and a form of harassment out, even just managing the macro cycle + map vision takes a lot of consistent actions, a fair few of which (like building supply) could probably be cut somewhere without damaging the core gameplay too much.
Curious if they surprise us given their goal and ideas. Will be skeptical unless proven otherwise. I still believe you can create a successful new version of Warcraft or StarCraft including attracting the masses.
On July 01 2021 20:12 lolfail9001 wrote: Speed will always be an advantage in actual real-time strategy by design.
Making speed matter but not become the ultimate gatekeeper in RTS however sounds really fucking hard.
It is not really. Just increase health of units, integrate supply in all military buildings and remove supply depots and weaken all game ending abilities. Change the abilities and stats of units so that an a-moved unit still have most but not all of its power.
Increase the importance of terrain and decrease the speed of the fastest units. Suddenly maneuvering and holding different positions on the map would matter more and clicking faster would matter less.
Make sure that flying units are always less powerful than ground units in a direct battle so that positioning matters more.
It's kind of funny to read what Dkim says, when he was on, when they gave us Medivac Boost, Muta extra speed + regen, Oracles that 2 shot workers and Widow Mines.
With that said a designer should design for the vision of the game and that vision is not always the same.
Personally I have little faith in Kim to make a good RTS considering his vision for Starcraft was questionable at best. Some of the most egregious design and balance errors were under his reign as lead balance designer. Infestor Broodlord, Colossus deathball, "terrible terrible damage", Swarm Hosts vs adding Lurkers.
Yea, I just don't know about that. Good luck to him I mean nothing personal but, still. I think the new balance team that took over when he left did a far superior job.
On July 01 2021 18:04 Bomzj wrote: For me Warcraft 3 was much more entertaining than Starcraft 2 which I play nowadays nevertheless . Warcraft 3 is less mechanical and more alive: health, magic fountains, artifacts, heroes and critters camps. No need to build N+1 bases and having to set up sophisticated keyboard layout (rapid fire stuff is not about skill). The good thing games become more entertaining and at the same time more easy to control and faster to play/watch. Boring Starcraft 1 needs a lot of camera hotkeys and 0-9 control groups and super fast clicking. Starcraft 2 is much more interesting and huge improvement over Starcraft 1. So I believe a new RTS would modernize those aspects and improve boring stuff like building bases and clicking everywhere without putting efforts to think. All in All, Starcraft is not RTS, it's rather RTC (Real Time Clicking).
I would disagree with you hardcore on the Starcraft games, agree on the Warcraft ones.
I’m sure I’ve missed playing some, Warcraft 3 is the only RTS I’ve played that simplified/cut out some of the macro elements and substituted in other mechanics that kept a lot of strategic depth.
Hero choices, how to creep and crucially how to adjust to item drops (that have an element of RNG yes) add a layer of dynamic adjustment that is pretty cool. Other games it’s just traditional RTS with less macro or less micro and I dunno they just don’t feel as satisfying to me.
One elephant in the room for me is, who plays RTS now? Do they like the clicking, the feeling of intensity and having to juggle lots of balls etc? I would argue, that yes actually people who do play these games now don’t view the mechanical requirements as an impediment to an optimal game, but actually like those elements. Not everybody, of course.
Why do I not play World of Warcraft? I prefer mechanical games over games where grinding and getting gear is a big part of the game.
If WoW changed overnight to being a much more skill based action game where gear wasn’t a huge deal I’d certainly pick it up, but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess the folks who’ve been playing it for over a decade would not be happy with those changes:
David Kim with an absolute loser mentality. Speed is part of the game, its part of the skills to be fast and yes sometimes it will make you win games over smarter opponents. In any RTS speed and execution matters. You can slow down the pace all you want, you will need to be faster than your opponent to win and complete the most actions. Man u guys are so entitled and can't deal with the complexity of speed, apm and other skills meanwhile. Reynor said it : you need the hands and the brain. Man DK clearly targets gen Z who wish to win without putting the effort, what a worthless generation.
what's wrong with games being hard? why does everything have to be ''accessible'' games like dark souls has an audience, the mechanical aspect combined with the strategy is what made Brood War so good.
On July 01 2021 22:48 atchosvk wrote: David Kim with an absolute loser mentality. Speed is part of the game, its part of the skills to be fast and yes sometimes it will make you win games over smarter opponents. In any RTS speed and execution matters. You can slow down the pace all you want, you will need to be faster than your opponent to win and complete the most actions. Man u guys are so entitled and can't deal with the complexity of speed, apm and other skills meanwhile. Reynor said it : you need the hands and the brain. Man DK clearly targets gen Z who wish to win without putting the effort, what a worthless generation.
Ridiculous generalisation, the argument isn’t that mechanics are bad it’s that in a strategy game the mechanics are such a cornerstone. You’ll have more success copying some builds and grinding out mechanics than trying to figure things out and improvising strategically.
This is also not factoring in other games that are more social in nature.
People who want that fix, will get it elsewhere. Not just other video games but online chess and poker, neither of which are particularly easy to get good at last I checked.
I know DK gets a lot of hate but personally I feel Wings of Liberty was very close to perfect and with the few (gigantic) blunders in design being much better understood in the RTS genre now I'm extremely excited to see what he comes up with in the future. Having an additional 11 years for this genre to develop since the release of SC2 has allowed everyones understanding to increase dramatically. I'm rooting for you, David Kim!
I find it sort of amusing how years ago the conversation around SC2 was that it was way too easy and the mechanics weren't difficult enough, making it less appealing to hardcore people thus weakening its playerbase while today every single "new" RTS developer is saying the complete opposite. Just a weird observation I have had, maybe its just a warped perception of the discourse back then on my part :p
While i think it is a great goal to make the mechanical requirements to play less of an issue for beginners (though it has to be said that this is already partly fixed by matchmaking itself, you absolutely can play with minimum apm, you just will be bronze or silver league), especially when it comes to actions which simply are not 'fun', i hope some of these studios working on rts titles fix imo the more important core issue: RTS games usually (at least the starcraft ones 100%) are not good at making people interact with each other. By that i don't mean the usual complaint of people saying it's not social, no i mean the core gameplay itself. There is no real incentive to interact with your opponent, there is no game mechanic which kinda forces you to do so. Compare that to all the popular games right now where each game has some form of mechanic which does just that and you'll see a potential problem. It's not a problem for people who are already into rts, they just interact, but what about new players? New players sit in their base, don't do anything with their opponent for most of the game, that's just not fun. Add to that the problem of being able to die at basically any moment, so there not being any real expectations one can have at any given match one plays, and you have a recipe for a game which is hard to get into.
It's easy to pick apart a handful of quotations, but it's neither here nor there until we actually see something tangible. The reality is I think we have lost a lot of natural RTS players to MOBA type games (certainly in my friend group that's where they disappeared). It's certainly worth thinking creatively on the RTS genre.
How they can improve upon BW, I don't know but that's why I'm not a game designer. However, I think the attack-retreat micro of BW is the best sort of thing that can be re-implemented in modern RTS- if you are a noob you can a-move in and right click-retreat out. Anyone can grasp that idea. But as you get better, you can control your army more effectively. And then have the armies move in predictable ways and incentivize spreading out your troops and suddenly concepts like the tangential zealot conga line into a-move attack (so that all the zealots attack at once) or magic box attack in creates more options for the better player. But the run of the mill player can still move their army around easily and throw down a cool spell or two.
But unless it's turn based, speed will be one of the biggest factors from absolute noob to semi-competent. Age of Empires II- as well- firstest with the mostest makes a huuuge difference amongst my friends. It doesn't matter how strategic you are- if you only make two soldiers, and I have a hundred, I'm going to win even if my unit composition sucks. Strategy and Speed will always go hand in hand- even in SupCom games where you can automate unit production and resource production is infinitely automated. (But I really hope they don't learn from SupCom because I really don't enjoy those games compared to Age or BW.)
People that have played RTS before moving to moba would definitely come back to RTS provided there is quality game with the proper support that mobas receive. We had an exodus of rts players from sc2 to moba games in 2012 because sc2 was largely stagnate balance wise. moba games kept their attention ever since because balance/changes for the mobas was managed on a very regular basis. Having new champs to play in mobas and balance changes on a regular basis always kept the game fresh and new in a way. I think the next big RTS should take the same approach, but instead of getting new champs on a regular basis races in the next rts could get new units and unit abilities would get tweaked regularly or w/e. I think it is something to at least consider.
That speaks to me about a lack of understanding of why exactly Starcraft is fast.
Starcraft is fast because it's a very complex game where there are multiple things to do at any given time and it scales exponentially. The first minute or two aren't fast, but as income increases, worker count etc there are more things to do making them mid and late be much faster (see also game speed of WoL vs LotV).
As a poster on the first page said, a player can play slow and build everything slow, but there will be people who make it faster, who can make more units, who can make more buildings, faster. And thus those players will have the macro advantage.
To make Starcraft (or any RTS) slower, you literally need to dumb it down. That or make any building and unit bulding time take forever. You cannot make Starcraft slower without making it simpler.
EDIT: On top of that, isn't the best part of sc2 micro? Marine and baneling split, loading units into medicavs vs disruptors and trying to dodge, great EMP/STORMS, Blink Micro etc. And all of those require speed. The only way to not have speed be advantageous for thos units, it's to make all units like roaches and brood lords.
I would love to see someone implementing draft/customization akin to those seen in MOBA. Like You have some core units/skills/upgrades that are always in Your force and You draft some before the game the way drafts are done.
Example draft before game: Force 1 (Terran): Picks - Ghost Force 2 (Zerg): Picks - Banelings, Bans - Liberator Force 1 Bans - Viper, Picks - Valkyrie Force 2 Picks Gaurdian And now they play with their core force + picked units/upgrades.
That way some of balance issues would be shifted towards meta. We could see different combinations of units on differnt maps and more creative player could come up with some surprise strats.
"That doesn't mean dumbed down or simplified," Hughes notes. "That just means lowering the barrier to entry for more people to expose them to what's great about RTS games."
Curious what that actually means. Guessing they are dumbing down the macro / automating it.
Well. Sc2's macro mechanics are artificially making the game harder. It's not a bad idea to get rid of that kind of stuff. There were mods out there that removed mules injects and chronoboost and those work just fine. In Sc2 they just made the decision to put them in because they didn't want the BW crowd to feel like the game was too easy, with uncapped unit selection / Rallypoints / etc.
It's not so much about making the game harder for the sake of making it harder. In BW, the more ahead you were, the more you expanded and the harder it got to manage everything. This gave the opposing player opportunities to make a comeback because they had fewer things to take care of.
On July 01 2021 21:32 Charoisaur wrote: What's the point in making a new RTS game when the perfect RTS game already exists?
Brood War is great, but not perfect. If you put your mind and imagination to it, and really think about it, you will see ways in which it can be better. It's not flawed, but it could have even more of the good things that it has; what it touches upon can be explored further. It can be improved. This game won't be that improvement, though (I would love to be wrong, because I myself would play and enjoy the game). There may never be an improvement. I'll believe it when I see it.
On July 02 2021 01:38 [Phantom] wrote: That speaks to me about a lack of understanding of why exactly Starcraft is fast.
Starcraft is fast because it's a very complex game where there are multiple things to do at any given time and it scales exponentially. The first minute or two aren't fast, but as income increases, worker count etc there are more things to do making them mid and late be much faster (see also game speed of WoL vs LotV).
As a poster on the first page said, a player can play slow and build everything slow, but there will be people who make it faster, who can make more units, who can make more buildings, faster. And thus those players will have the macro advantage.
To make Starcraft (or any RTS) slower, you literally need to dumb it down. That or make any building and unit bulding time take forever. You cannot make Starcraft slower without making it simpler.
EDIT: On top of that, isn't the best part of sc2 micro? Marine and baneling split, loading units into medicavs vs disruptors and trying to dodge, great EMP/STORMS, Blink Micro etc. And all of those require speed. The only way to not have speed be advantageous for thos units, it's to make all units like roaches and brood lords.
I'll argue your point about micro. I do believe Starcraft 2 and its engine / gameplay speed severly results in the micro lacking. I believe a slower speed would result in better (not easier) control. Everything you would control is slower but you would be able to spend more time microing an army. Also it would decrease the chances of the armies dying within a second after a fight starts.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
Must resist urge to write low-effort troll posts about David Kim.
Interview is a bit odd considering back when SC2 was realeased all those years ago it was seen as a very traditional RTS at a time when the recent and successful RTS of that time were Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander, one of which has minimal base building where the focus was fighting round the map and the other with automated production and quite clever scripts like being able to set up an automatic transport system or set up an attack with units moving at different speeds spread around the map arriving at once on a distant target.
There have been many other attempts to redefine and automate tasks in RTS some of which came out around the same time as Starcraft itself like Ground Control (3D RTS with no real economy). My view on automated production is that a system like Supreme Commander is welcoming, and having systems where you have to remember to inject every 40 seconds or build depots every 25 seconds is terrible.
Why do supply depots even exist? In one sense they add an element of strategy as losing units mean you don't need to spend resources to have a larger army and to create a larger army you need to spend more, but having to make production buildings is similar to that. A lot of strategy in RTS is choosing where to spend your resources. Having depots and the like also forces to have buildings which must be protected and as they occupy an ever larger space, they become more difficult to protect. However modern mapmaking means that those are usually well protected and production and economy buildings are the usual concern, thus there is no need for such. I would welcome an RTS with no need to build additonal pylons.
It must be noted that tech buildings are a crucial part of RTS strategy as well. They become buildings to scout and search for, to proxy and fake. RTS games with no tech buildings tend to be paper thin in depth. Tech become a matter of suprise or expectation.
Talking about speed misses the point. There has to be skill involved in the game beyond just matching and countering unit compositions otherwise it become a boring game indeed. Talking about difficulty rather than barrier to entry also misses the point. A competitive game will always be hard, and doubly so if it is a team game. FPS games can be hard games with extremely high skill ceilings, but at the same time they are accessible games.
On July 02 2021 05:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Why do supply depots even exist? In one sense they add an element of strategy as losing units mean you don't need to spend resources to have a larger army and to create a larger army you need to spend more, but having to make production buildings is similar to that. A lot of strategy in RTS is choosing where to spend your resources. Having depots and the like also forces to have buildings which must be protected and as they occupy an ever larger space, they become more difficult to protect. However modern mapmaking means that those are usually well protected and production and economy buildings are the usual concern, thus there is no need for such. I would welcome an RTS with no need to build additonal pylons.
I think you're missing the point of supply buildings: they're a catch up mechanism. If someone loses an engagement, assuming they haven't lost a bunch of depots or whatever, they can rebuild relatively easily, without having to spend on more supply buildings. Whereas the player who won is going to have to build more in order to gain a comparable amount of units.
Take out the supply buildings and player who gets ahead will maintain the same lead on units until max out, since there's no mechanic for slowing them down.
Now, there might be a more elegant/interesting way to get the same slight rubber banding effect, but supply has been in virtually every big rts for a reason.
I have deeply limited faith in the team that put out the war hound as a possible unit. Sc2 has a brilliant campaign. The balancing was a shitshow from day1. David Kim lead a team that didn’t respect that constraints as much as abilities makes for interesting decisions. Curious but deeply deeply suspicious of a project leaning on David Kim.
On July 01 2021 07:39 IMSupervisor wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but APM was not the thing that intimidated me as a new player, it's the fog of war and the complete lack of information that scared me. I also have zero desire to play a game any casual player can do well at if they just watch a meta-relevant YouTube video on what to do.
All of the great games are hard to play even when you know what to do and that's why they endure decades in an industry that is quick to forget. I really wish the focus on how to lower the barrier of entry was on how to best educate players how to play multiplayer in a stress free, non-competitive environment, not by stripping out skill differentiators until the winner is who knows the most. We could just hold a quiz show and award the winner that way if it's supposed to be all about knowing what to do.
New players suck because there is no concept of build orders, no scouting, it's all information related. When pro's can play at masters / GM level with only a mouse, the issue is not mechanics. APM is how we execute strategy; if you don't know what you're doing, you have nothing to execute and you stare at the screen = your APM is low. Teach players what to do and that all starts to go away.
I want to watch pro games and wonder "how can they do that?" in addition to "they're so smart". I want to feel like I can always improve my own game by improving myself. Endlessly. I want another RTS I can play for 10 years, just as SC2 has been my thing for the previous.
If they want the strategy to be more prominent in the game, they need to change the units/upgrades etc up more often. Imagine how much more diverse SC2 games would be if there were major re-balancing and design changes every year?
When I started playing BW again (Remastered, whatever) the biggest challenge for me was definitely adjusting to the speed of the game (APM). When I'm playing the game seems much faster than it does watching someone (Arty lol) stream or watching replays. Focusing on making workers gather, build, and units run around hurt me trying to stick to build orders / defend against the opponent's build order. A lot of getting into the groove of playing came back fairly quick but not all of it, I'm definitely nowhere near as good as when I was 16 and it makes me lol
David Kim truly had a difficult time when it came to balancing Starcraft 2. My perception as an outsider is that Dustin Browder had all of these ideas for "cool-looking units" and it was David's job to make them feel unique without being broken. That created some design constraints for him, which is generally fine, but his methodology for testing unit balance was so...mathematical. Like he'd run a test of 5 of unit A vs 5 of unit B with no micro and record the result, then with micro and record the result. Sure these tests were run with consideration of resource costs and supply and everything, but balancing in this manner feels sterile. In BW, I'm pretty sure they changed stuff based on real games played internally and observed from feedback. SC2 has the technological advantage of telemetry, which is why their race balance is so numerically close. Clearly, David isn't afraid to iterate and adjust where necessary, even when it comes to removing entire units from the game (like the Warhound).
The main difference between Rob Pardo's BW and David Kim's SC2 from what I surmise is that Pardo had no idea just how good RTS players would ultimately become, while David Kim assumes this inevitability. In BW, 1 Zealot costs the same as 2 Marines, and sure people found out early that microing 2 Marines you could beat 1 Zealot, but it required attention and micro. I'm sure if David Kim were at the helm instead, Zealots would be 80 or 90 minerals to account for this. But, this scenario only happens in a minority of cases, and generally speaking, it's fine that the possibility exists and that 1 Zealot beats 2 Marines the rest of the time. That is still acceptable balance, because these things don't happen in a vacuum.
Pardo's decision to introduce armor types created a daunting knowledge floor ("why does my 20-damage Vulture only do 5 damage to this building?"), but it created additional design flexibility that SC2's bonus damage lacks. SC2 also has many more upgrades available for its units, almost all hugely situational or specialized. Maybe I'm mischaracterizing David Kim, but from my own experiences in following SC2's development from previews at Blizzcon until the time he left the team, the game became more of a math problem rather than just a fun time. That's kind of inevitable when you have a community of min-maxers fueling that mindset, but that doesn't mean it's always a good thing to support that school of thought. David Kim did similar "design-by-committee" sessions when he posted previews of Diablo IV's "Power" mechanics, where he asked the community for feedback and then backpedaled on his design in response. That does give me pause about supporting his next game. He has the mechanical ability to develop and execute strategies at a high level (he was a grandmaster Random player, after all), and he has the mathematical prowess to balance things well, but I'm not seeing the soul that creates a game that is just plain fun to play.
On July 01 2021 23:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: RTS games usually (at least the starcraft ones 100%) are not good at making people interact with each other. By that i don't mean the usual complaint of people saying it's not social, no i mean the core gameplay itself. There is no real incentive to interact with your opponent, there is no game mechanic which kinda forces you to do so. .
Yes exactly! This is why bio TvZ is such a great match-up for SC2. If Zerg gets left alone, they build up into an unstoppable powerhouse with their economy and creep spread. So Terran attacks and attacks and tries to slow down and/or kill the Zerg. Then at some point, Zerg gets enough Lurkers out and Terran switches gears and plays the cost efficiency game, and now it's up to Zerg now to kill the Terran before they run out of resources. When one player is forced into action to win the game, we get fireworks and the tension in the game remains pretty constant. Terran is typically a little stronger off creep and Zerg is a little faster on it, so both races can disengage and retreat (somewhat) so the player isn't overly punished just for being active on the map. Whether the speed buff of creep was designed this way on purpose or not, we'll probably never know, but it's just such a great design feature for that specific match-up.
Holy, this really makes me worried for this game. Of course I understand making rts more approachable and also perhaps dumb down some of the macro requirements. Like how they changed queens injects, making them stackable because those kinds of macro skills are wholy unfun and unnecesary. I don't mind that, the way he replies here though it seems more like taking away macro instead of simplifying macro.
So any gamer is supposed to be able to play this, and the skills required is countering what you see and strategy? You know what, that sounds like a turn based strategy game and not a real time strategy game.
Not to mention the skill of countering what you see, so they are going to turn this game into another hardcounter rock-paper-scissors thing. Yeah he is pretty much describing the opposite of what I want in every way.
This sounds so wrong to me, if its supposed to be only strategy then why not take away fog of war and remove scouting requirement. No? Well if they are removing the need to macro everyone is going to scout perfectly anyway since there is nothing else to do so might as well reveal the whole map. Scouting is balanced and interesting because it comes with lost opportunity cost of doing other things
Maybe this game has an audiance but its definitely not me
On July 01 2021 23:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: RTS games usually (at least the starcraft ones 100%) are not good at making people interact with each other. By that i don't mean the usual complaint of people saying it's not social, no i mean the core gameplay itself. There is no real incentive to interact with your opponent, there is no game mechanic which kinda forces you to do so. .
Yes exactly! This is why bio TvZ is such a great match-up for SC2. If Zerg gets left alone, they build up into an unstoppable powerhouse with their economy and creep spread. So Terran attacks and attacks and tries to slow down and/or kill the Zerg. Then at some point, Zerg gets enough Lurkers out and Terran switches gears and plays the cost efficiency game, and now it's up to Zerg now to kill the Terran before they run out of resources. When one player is forced into action to win the game, we get fireworks and the tension in the game remains pretty constant. Terran is typically a little stronger off creep and Zerg is a little faster on it, so both races can disengage and retreat (somewhat) so the player isn't overly punished just for being active on the map. Whether the speed buff of creep was designed this way on purpose or not, we'll probably never know, but it's just such a great design feature for that specific match-up.
Ugh bio, so tired of seeing it and bored of using it. We've had 10 years of marine marauder medivac. It's so played out and not fun.
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
The only thing RTS needs is a good client for BW, everything else is just regular business cycle stuff to show short term "growth" on balance sheets. Quality isn't a priority anymore, it hasn't been for a while now. Large corporations/investors have found a profitable formula and they're maximizing their returns, that's mainly what it boils down to.
The industry is all about appealing to casuals and farming them now, rinse and repeat. That's fine tbh, people are entitled to spend their money however they want. Don't sell me your philosophy on game design though, to me that's just the beginning of the sales pitch. This industry is all about generating hype, let me see your product and I'll be (as a knowledgeable consumer) the judge of whether or not it deserves praise.
We should be rewarding quality products, not sales pitches. The industry has had it backwards for a while now (enabled by consumers, to be fair). Nothing will change as long as the money keeps pouring in though.
On July 02 2021 08:08 BronzeKnee wrote: David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not ever player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
Yo for real, early game micro/skirmishes is the best part to execute as a player and very entertaining to watch from a spectator perspective. There is nothing more satisfying in an rts than out microing your opponent. Things like shield batteries and the mothership core have definitely ruined this. Not to mention the stupid idiotic protoss contain builds that have spawned from the shield battery being thing. Things like recall being given to a nexus was just dumb, should have been given to the mothership to be used as an ultimate finisher late game or something instead.
On July 01 2021 23:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: RTS games usually (at least the starcraft ones 100%) are not good at making people interact with each other. By that i don't mean the usual complaint of people saying it's not social, no i mean the core gameplay itself. There is no real incentive to interact with your opponent, there is no game mechanic which kinda forces you to do so. .
Yes exactly! This is why bio TvZ is such a great match-up for SC2. If Zerg gets left alone, they build up into an unstoppable powerhouse with their economy and creep spread. So Terran attacks and attacks and tries to slow down and/or kill the Zerg. Then at some point, Zerg gets enough Lurkers out and Terran switches gears and plays the cost efficiency game, and now it's up to Zerg now to kill the Terran before they run out of resources. When one player is forced into action to win the game, we get fireworks and the tension in the game remains pretty constant. Terran is typically a little stronger off creep and Zerg is a little faster on it, so both races can disengage and retreat (somewhat) so the player isn't overly punished just for being active on the map. Whether the speed buff of creep was designed this way on purpose or not, we'll probably never know, but it's just such a great design feature for that specific match-up.
Oh no don't get me wrong, that is an indirect way which experienced players realize, that's not what i am talking about. I am talking about active game mechanics which make people interact with each other, something fundamental which leads players to interactions. Say in a moba how creep waves meet in lane, and creeps being the money makers leading you to your enemy from the moment the game starts. Or like in counterstrike, where the fundamental game goal is for one side to plant a bomb on a spot where the enemy is waiting for you. Or how in battle royales there are points of interest (looting) and the map gets smaller and smaller resulting in pvp moments.
Any rts player who is somewhat experienced will try and interact with the enemy, that's fine, but david kim (and other game designers) try to make the core gameplay more appealing for a broader audience here. I haven't really seen much talk about this (imo) core problem of at least both starcraft games. At least in my opinion pvp games are fun due to the interactions they create (now ofc there are interactions which are more fun than others), so on the macro level your game first needs to make people interact at all. When one looks at new players they barely do so though, it's more likely they'll sit back, build their base and then one or two army fights decide the game at any particular moment (could be a zergling rush early, could be a 200/200 fight 40 minutes into the game). That's not particularly fun. It's frustrating because there is no expectation for a game, it could be literally anything, it's as if you played football (the real one!) and the game is over after 20 seconds instead of usually 90 minutes for some weird reasons, while the next game goes 40 minutes, the game after 300. I think some form of consistency of expectations are key, i think some form of mechanic which leads to meaningful interactions always is key.
With that being said, i think (that's at least how i choose to interprete these comments) they have an important goal in mind as well, decreasing the amount of clicks needed to execute the minimum requirements where we can say that someone plays the game how it is supposed to be played (not meaning perfectly, just decently). I just think that's not necessarily enough to make people want to play the game in and of itself.
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
I must say, the take that SC2 was at it's peak in early 2011 is a very hot take (even if it probably had greatest interest at the time, at least in NA).
Some of the comments here are pretty insane. On the one hand you have a game like starcraft where the player that plays the fastest will win like 95% of the time (I'm talking effective apm, not just random clicking). But then as many of you have apparently forgotten there are turn based strategy games where speed is not remotely a factor.
I see no reason why there can't be an in between game where speed only helps you up to a point. There is necessarily an inverse relationship between speed and strategy. The more import speed is the less important strategy is and vice versa.
Even within SC2 there is lots of room for reducing the importance of speed. Units left on their own could behave less retarded. Pointless "macro mechanics" could be removed. I'm not saying that SC2 should change, SC2 is fine as it is. I'm just saying that reducing the importance of speed doesn't "dumb down" the game. Having to click on hatcheries every once doesn't make SC2 a smarter game for smart people. It just makes it a fast game for fast people. which is fine! there is nothing wrong with that. But don't act like making a game where you actually have to think about what you are doing rather than perform a pre-planned build on autopilot is somehow a dumber game.
On July 02 2021 11:18 AcrossFromTime wrote: Some of the comments here are pretty insane. On the one hand you have a game like starcraft where the player that plays the fastest will win like 95% of the time (I'm talking effective apm, not just random clicking). But then as many of you have apparently forgotten there are turn based strategy games where speed is not remotely a factor.
I see no reason why there can't be an in between game where speed only helps you up to a point. There is necessarily an inverse relationship between speed and strategy. The more import speed is the less important strategy is and vice versa.
Even within SC2 there is lots of room for reducing the importance of speed. Units left on their own could behave less retarded. Pointless "macro mechanics" could be removed. I'm not saying that SC2 should change, SC2 is fine as it is. I'm just saying that reducing the importance of speed doesn't "dumb down" the game. Having to click on hatcheries every once doesn't make SC2 a smarter game for smart people. It just makes it a fast game for fast people. which is fine! there is nothing wrong with that. But don't act like making a game where you actually have to think about what you are doing rather than perform a pre-planned build on autopilot is somehow a dumber game.
There is no such thing as an in between. You are either taking turns or you are doing things in real time. When you change a real time strategy game to turn based, it's no longer real time strategy. Here is my terrible attempt at an analogy....Think of it as motion, if you are not in motion, then you are stopped or still right? There is no in between, you are either moving or not.
I think you're missing the point of supply buildings: they're a catch up mechanism. If someone loses an engagement, assuming they haven't lost a bunch of depots or whatever, they can rebuild relatively easily, without having to spend on more supply buildings. Whereas the player who won is going to have to build more in order to gain a comparable amount of units.
Take out the supply buildings and player who gets ahead will maintain the same lead on units until max out, since there's no mechanic for slowing them down.
Now, there might be a more elegant/interesting way to get the same slight rubber banding effect, but supply has been in virtually every big rts for a reason.
Umm...in what % of SC2 matches have you seen this "catch up mechanism" operate in the way you describe? If this is so obviously a catch up mechanism, why aren't players able to catch up in anything other than rare and exceptional circumstances? Is there even a single pro game in which there was a comeback win that you can point to in which this factor was significant, let alone game-determinative? Some of the greatest comebacks in pro SC2 do not follow this script at all (e.g. the player who found themselves ahead often had plenty of supply headroom...in many cases more than the player who lost the engagement).
Let's be honest: comebacks of any appreciable nature rarely happen outside of some unique TvT scenarios and certain players like Maru and Serral who exhibit exceptional play that prove the rule: SC2 isn't really a game of comebacks, and when they do happen it's hard to argue with a straight face that this is because of the supply building/unit mechanism. You admit that this can only operate as a catch up mechanism if the player that loses the engagement hasn't also lost supply buildings/units, which is a very strange assumption to make because a large % of successful attacks are at your opponent's base. But also the mechanism doesn't apply in maxed out scenarios either. It's just very odd to describe this as a comeback mechanism. Comebacks rarely happen, and when they do, it's rarely because of this mechanism.
Have you considered that supply buildings have been in every big RTS because game developers think players have come to expect supply buildings in every big RTS?
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
I must say, the take that SC2 was at it's peak in early 2011 is a very hot take (even if it probably had greatest interest at the time, at least in NA).
I guess that depends on how you define peak. By most objective measures, as well as from a game design standpoint, it is obvious when the peak was. The proof is always in the pudding, people want to watch and play well designed games, and they don't want to play or watch poorly designed ones. There is more than just a cursory correlation between game design and popularity. I'm not sure we've seen League's peak yet, there is a reason it is so popular.
The fact many of the game design decision from HOTS were reversed (such as Photon Overcharge) is just further evidence.
Of course most of the old guard who knew this is gone, because the game got worse, thus what I said is a hot take to those who don't know. My comments below exemplify why, but Razzia of the Blizzsters highlights it better: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
On July 02 2021 11:18 AcrossFromTime wrote: I see no reason why there can't be an in between game where speed only helps you up to a point. There is necessarily an inverse relationship between speed and strategy. The more import speed is the less important strategy is and vice versa.
In any real-time game, speed is massively important. Whether you water down the macro mechanics, reduce the amount of things to do, ect... it will then boil down to reflexes, muscle memory and reaction time.
It's the difference between a drag race between cars with an automatic and manual transmission. The ideas David Kim is suggesting are akin to that. if you water down the mechanics, then the game becomes hyper focused on a small point in time, just like a drag race between two automatic cars is all about who can catch the tree better, where with manual transmissions shift points and shifting skills come into play.
Now if you boil that down enough, and I understand the drive to make this only about strategy, you end up with a bad product as that goal is misguided for a real-time game. The beauty of Starcraft is that strategies require mechanical skills that are hard to learn. If you take away the mechanical skill and everything is basically on auto pilot, then the game is a strategic coin flip, and the results will always be known. The game then becomes hyper focused on the point in time when someone makes a decision regarding which strategy to pick (the same decision made in rock-paper-scissors).
Imagine there was no micro when doing an 11 pool. So if a Terran doesn't choose a wall off strategy they just lose, and if they do they just win. And if the Terran builds Marines versus Zerglings, they win, unless there is Banelings, then they lose.
That isn't exciting. And the game doesn't need to have no mechanical skill to be that way. Almost everyone can drive a car, if the skill required is no greater than driving a car, then you'll see no difference between most players, and the scenarios in the paragraph above will play out as if there was no skill required at all. The more you increase the difficulty, the more predictable the results will be (better players will distinguish themselves), as MVP and MC did in WOL.
But there is a point where speed and difficult become so great that it actually reduces skill, TheDwf covered this well in Razzia of the Blizzsters, describing it as try to control a car going so fast no one can control it. And the speed and demands of HOTS and LOTV have gone so far as to reduce skill: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
Blizzard introduced low skill units and abilities (Photon Overcharge, Swarm Hosts and Widow Mines) and released larger maps in HOTS to make the game easier and more accessible (less about one base timings, micro and having to earn an expansion), but this actually ended up speeding the game up as people began racing through the early game directly into the late game, where players are asked to do much more with many more units, instead of focusing on controlling a small number of units well.
And this hurt the popularity of the game, and made it less watchable for a variety of reasons (boring early game). And the results of who wins became less predictable because there is less room to show skill (for example, Pheonixes were given extra range to make their interactions with Mutalisks more predictable, no longer did skill and micro play as big a role in the the battle as much as it did in WOL), we don't see the dominant streaks we saw in WOL (or BW) to the same extent. It is too fast and too dependent on low skill units.
So I understand and agree with the drive to slow down the game, but make it too slow and there is no skill also. Razzia of the Blizzsters covers this better than I am now honestly, I recommend reading it.
David Kim and Blizzard never understood this relationship, and he clearly still doesn't, which is why his next game will fail.
I think you're missing the point of supply buildings: they're a catch up mechanism. If someone loses an engagement, assuming they haven't lost a bunch of depots or whatever, they can rebuild relatively easily, without having to spend on more supply buildings. Whereas the player who won is going to have to build more in order to gain a comparable amount of units.
Take out the supply buildings and player who gets ahead will maintain the same lead on units until max out, since there's no mechanic for slowing them down.
Now, there might be a more elegant/interesting way to get the same slight rubber banding effect, but supply has been in virtually every big rts for a reason.
Umm...in what % of SC2 matches have you seen this "catch up mechanism" operate in the way you describe? If this is so obviously a catch up mechanism, why aren't players able to catch up in anything other than rare and exceptional circumstances? Is there even a single pro game in which there was a comeback win that you can point to in which this factor was significant, let alone game-determinative? Some of the greatest comebacks in pro SC2 do not follow this script at all (e.g. the player who found themselves ahead often had plenty of supply headroom...in many cases more than the player who lost the engagement).
Let's be honest: comebacks of any appreciable nature rarely happen outside of some unique TvT scenarios and certain players like Maru and Serral who exhibit exceptional play that prove the rule: SC2 isn't really a game of comebacks, and when they do happen it's hard to argue with a straight face that this is because of the supply building/unit mechanism. You admit that this can only operate as a catch up mechanism if the player that loses the engagement hasn't also lost supply buildings/units, which is a very strange assumption to make because a large % of successful attacks are at your opponent's base. But also the mechanism doesn't apply in maxed out scenarios either. It's just very odd to describe this as a comeback mechanism. Comebacks rarely happen, and when they do, it's rarely because of this mechanism.
Have you considered that supply buildings have been in every big RTS because game developers think players have come to expect supply buildings in every big RTS?
You're right. Only a few elite players have ever come back from a deficit, all battles lead to critical infrastructure damage, and developers have no real reason behind the inclusion of supply buildings (or, I guess, have decided to include supply to appease all of those ravening supply fans out there).
In response to your questions: Have you ever seen a game where a player lost more units early on but had a comparable army later in the game? Even before maxing out? How do you think that happened? If there are no throttles on unit production, it can't.
On July 02 2021 08:08 BronzeKnee wrote: Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
I don't interpret DK like that, I read it as he wants all the macro demands removed/"simplified" and keep the micro. In short turn it into a game were you click the unit you want and you get it and then the actual game is micro war with armies.
I think the problem is the opposite of what you think, if DK makes a game like that everyone can micro perfectly because there is nothing else to focus on so either the micro needs to be even more complex and demanding than now to be able to see skil difference or turn it into a hardcounter thing.
On July 02 2021 14:03 ReachTheSky wrote: There is no such thing as an in between. You are either taking turns or you are doing things in real time. When you change a real time strategy game to turn based, it's no longer real time strategy. Here is my terrible attempt at an analogy....Think of it as motion, if you are not in motion, then you are stopped or still right? There is no in between, you are either moving or not.
I mean there is, BW is an example of an RTS with extremely heavy focus on APM demand. The current starcraft 2 is an rts with less heavy focus on APM and more on strategy. Of course there can be a third game with even less focus on APM. The poster you replied to never wrote it would be a mix between turn based and RTS he wrote it would be a mix between APM focus and strategy focus, which honestly all games already are, the difference is on which end the game design leans towards.
I consider games like league of legends a bit like that mix between rts and turn based, I mean you control one unit so there is never a need to take the focus away from your one unit. Which makes it so you will never miss the perfect opportunity to use your skills/abilities, its not turn based game but at the same time the way the game is designed you never miss an opportunity because you are never focused on anything else.
While trying to make RTS as accessible to a wider audience makes sense from a financial perspective, I don't really see how the best of both worlds can be achieved for the genre.
If you want to play tower defense, play a tower defense game, if you want to play MOBA, there's plenty of choice - what many players of RTS love about the genre is the sheer difficulty to accomplish anything resembling mastery of the craft, I think. Compromising on this will probably be able to attract new players, but RTS itself would lose its identity and this is what has kept games like StarCraft or Age of Empires around throughout two decades.
You're right. Only a few elite players have ever come back from a deficit, all battles lead to critical infrastructure damage, and developers have no real reason behind the inclusion of supply buildings (or, I guess, have decided to include supply to appease all of those ravening supply fans out there).
In response to your questions: Have you ever seen a game where a player lost more units early on but had a comparable army later in the game? Even before maxing out? How do you think that happened? If there are no throttles on unit production, it can't.
To be clear: you're not actually responding to my questions. You're just asking different questions. But I'll answer. Yes, players sometimes able to recover after losing units to have a comparable army to their opponent later in the game. How does it happen? Different ways, but primarily by aggressively expanding their economy to mine the necessary resources to rebuild the units they lost faster than their opponent can build additional units; successfully defending against the inevitable threats and attacks that come with the opponent's follow-on pressure; successfully counter-attacking to create the necessary space and time to rebuild; and very good micro, army movement, and army repositioning to trade well in follow-on battles. In other words: thoughtful strategy and tactics.
Again, you might want to watch and analyze some of the great comebacks in SC2 pro matches to understand how players typically catch up when behind. Example: Maru v. Solar 2020 Super Tournament I, Game 2:
Many interesting things to observe in this game, but let's dig deeper and see how the "supple throttle theory" plays out. At the conclusion of the first big attack Maru's at 32/38 and Solar's at 43/44 (Maru lost a depot and Solar lost 2 overlords). Let's give the benefit of the doubt to the "supply throttle theory" and assume Solar has a full overlord's worth of added production tax: -100 minerals and a larva. Admittedly not insignificant. That said, within 30 seconds both players being great macro players are back to hugging their supply caps and completing their macro cycles. It's just clear that this isn't the primary driver of what's going on in this game.
When you actually analyze the game you start to key in on the same things the casters are noticing. First, it's pretty clear that the "catch up mechanism" here is the cyclone, and more specifically Maru's ridiculous "Warcraft 3 micro"--to borrow the casters' phrase--that allows him to rack up 40 kills with the 2 cycles before the six and a half minute mark. Second, the thing that's really hurting Maru's chances is the fact that he lost 12 SEVs and a barracks early on, which Maru deals with by launching counterattacks and harassment of his own to kill drones and hatches and ultimately slow down Solar's production. These are the *actual* supply throttle dynamics at play in this game. But third and most importantly: with thoughtful army positioning and movement and great micro Maru successfully holds in several major follow-on attacks in which pretty much every other player would have died. Analyze other comebacks and you'll see a lot of similar dynamics at play.
Regarding the other things you're implying I said or meant, let's avoid the strawman arguments and be really clear. I did not say "all" battles lead to critical infrastructure damage, but it's just a fact that many players get ahead by successfully attacking an opposing player's base, which often results in infrastructure getting sniped, whether that's supply, production, or upgrade infrastructure. By the way, good luck catching up if you get your key upgrades sniped. I'm sure if your opponent needs to build a marginal extra pylon or two that'll do the trick
In terms of whether only elite players make comebacks at the pro level, honestly that just depends on how you define a comeback. But within the larger spectrum of strategy games, SC2 is not a particularly comeback-friendly game. There are a few reasons for this, but most importantly SC2 is highly deterministic (I believe the only real RNG is the SEV movement when it's building). Which means it's relatively straightforward for very good players to convert substantial leads into bigger leads and ultimately into game-ending attacks and pushes (some TvT scenarios may be an exception). Interestingly, a lot of the comebacks you do see are when the losing player "rolls the dice" so to speak by hiding tech out on the map (e.g. dark shrine) or pursuing some kind of doom drop or all-in attack that they hope the opponent will not scout in time. Again, it almost never has to do with supply throttling.
There are a lot of ways to design for rubber-banding and catch-up mechanisms, and it's always a fine balance especially in strategy games between keeping things interesting and creating a game in which the "best play" wins. Remember: SC2 is not Mariokart, but I do think it's a valid question as to whether RTS needs more clear and compelling high risk-high reward comeback options to avoid having all these formulaic forced all-in games.
On July 02 2021 07:05 Excalibur_Z wrote: David Kim truly had a difficult time when it came to balancing Starcraft 2. My perception as an outsider is that Dustin Browder had all of these ideas for "cool-looking units" and it was David's job to make them feel unique without being broken. That created some design constraints for him, which is generally fine, but his methodology for testing unit balance was so...mathematical. Like he'd run a test of 5 of unit A vs 5 of unit B with no micro and record the result, then with micro and record the result. Sure these tests were run with consideration of resource costs and supply and everything, but balancing in this manner feels sterile. In BW, I'm pretty sure they changed stuff based on real games played internally and observed from feedback. SC2 has the technological advantage of telemetry, which is why their race balance is so numerically close. Clearly, David isn't afraid to iterate and adjust where necessary, even when it comes to removing entire units from the game (like the Warhound).
The main difference between Rob Pardo's BW and David Kim's SC2 from what I surmise is that Pardo had no idea just how good RTS players would ultimately become, while David Kim assumes this inevitability. In BW, 1 Zealot costs the same as 2 Marines, and sure people found out early that microing 2 Marines you could beat 1 Zealot, but it required attention and micro. I'm sure if David Kim were at the helm instead, Zealots would be 80 or 90 minerals to account for this. But, this scenario only happens in a minority of cases, and generally speaking, it's fine that the possibility exists and that 1 Zealot beats 2 Marines the rest of the time. That is still acceptable balance, because these things don't happen in a vacuum.
Pardo's decision to introduce armor types created a daunting knowledge floor ("why does my 20-damage Vulture only do 5 damage to this building?"), but it created additional design flexibility that SC2's bonus damage lacks. SC2 also has many more upgrades available for its units, almost all hugely situational or specialized. Maybe I'm mischaracterizing David Kim, but from my own experiences in following SC2's development from previews at Blizzcon until the time he left the team, the game became more of a math problem rather than just a fun time. That's kind of inevitable when you have a community of min-maxers fueling that mindset, but that doesn't mean it's always a good thing to support that school of thought. David Kim did similar "design-by-committee" sessions when he posted previews of Diablo IV's "Power" mechanics, where he asked the community for feedback and then backpedaled on his design in response. That does give me pause about supporting his next game. He has the mechanical ability to develop and execute strategies at a high level (he was a grandmaster Random player, after all), and he has the mathematical prowess to balance things well, but I'm not seeing the soul that creates a game that is just plain fun to play.
I think this is a pretty good analysis really.
I’m not sure how much he’s responsible for the ultimate design philosophy of SC2. I think he did a miraculous job in balancing around the overall design, but was hamstrung by said design a lot.
Another way I feel the game was hamstrung was the map philosophy too. Every map had to be balanced around 50/50 in all matchups, where BW enabled maps that were intentionally built around being excellent maps for singular matchups at times.
Within those constraints it’s a remarkably, remarkably well ‘balanced’ game at basically all levels of play and I think that is genuinely impressive and speaks to some talented designers.
But as you say balance and fun, while linked are not the same thing.
On a side point, and in many pages of responses I haven’t seen this mentioned yet. Is anyone else worried that this RTS talent is seemingly being spread across a few games now?
It strikes me as the best change of success for the next big RTS game is as many talented eggs in one basket as possible and hope they nail it.
On a side point, and in many pages of responses I haven’t seen this mentioned yet. Is anyone else worried that this RTS talent is seemingly being spread across a few games now?
It strikes me as the best change of success for the next big RTS game is as many talented eggs in one basket as possible and hope they nail it.
I think the opposite is true. During the golden of RTS lots of games were produced from many different studios.
Some great: Warcraft, StarCraft and Age of Empires. Some good: Command and Counter and Total Annihilation. And lots and lots of RTS ranging from mediocre to bad.
In most areas you need lots of something in order to get good and great things.
Apart from that, the RTS genre as a whole would benefit from having lots of choices. Because the potential audiences will grow if you have more RTS games that cater to different tastes. Some prefer RTS that have non-stop action. Some will prefer RTS that are bit slower and where the pace of the game is slower and more strategic. Some preferer the medieval settings, others WW2 etc.
It is not one masterpiece that will re-vitalize the genre. It is lots of great and good games being produced at once - which is what is happening right now.
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
I must say, the take that SC2 was at it's peak in early 2011 is a very hot take (even if it probably had greatest interest at the time, at least in NA).
I guess that depends on how you define peak. By most objective measures, as well as from a game design standpoint, it is obvious when the peak was. The proof is always in the pudding, people want to watch and play well designed games, and they don't want to play or watch poorly designed ones. There is more than just a cursory correlation between game design and popularity. I'm not sure we've seen League's peak yet, there is a reason it is so popular.
The fact many of the game design decision from HOTS were reversed (such as Photon Overcharge) is just further evidence.
Of course most of the old guard who knew this is gone, because the game got worse, thus what I said is a hot take to those who don't know. My comments below exemplify why, but Razzia of the Blizzsters highlights it better: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
First and foremost, using popularity as telltale of quality is argument so bad, we codified that in a meme comparing it to flies' preference for crap. If you prefer humans, i can just tell you that millions of people buy sports games every year, and that would be enough of counter argument. And well, even in 2021, significantly more people play Dota 2 than SC2 and present design of Dota 2 is horrendous attempt to get people to play more than just core roles to an extent current half-dead SC2 is a competitive (! chilling in dota 2's whatever is far superior) game with better design and 1% (if that) of playerbase.
Next, while photon overcharge has been removed, in the essence Protoss still have a "I solved your push" button in shield overcharge, so your example once again went nowhere.
On a side point, and in many pages of responses I haven’t seen this mentioned yet. Is anyone else worried that this RTS talent is seemingly being spread across a few games now?
It strikes me as the best change of success for the next big RTS game is as many talented eggs in one basket as possible and hope they nail it.
I think the opposite is true. During the golden of RTS lots of games were produced from many different studios.
Some great: Warcraft, StarCraft and Age of Empires. Some good: Command and Counter and Total Annihilation. And lots and lots of RTS ranging from mediocre to bad.
In most areas you need lots of something in order to get good and great things.
Apart from that, the RTS genre as a whole would benefit from having lots of choices. Because the potential audiences will grow if you have more RTS games that cater to different tastes. Some prefer RTS that have non-stop action. Some will prefer RTS that are bit slower and where the pace of the game is slower and more strategic. Some preferer the medieval settings, others WW2 etc.
It is not one masterpiece that will re-vitalize the genre. It is lots of great and good games being produced at once - which is what is happening right now.
You could be right. Equally I mean the stuff you mentioned occurred during the golden age of RTS, where we’re quite a distance out from now.
Either direction could work though. As the roaring success of the Nolan Batman films opened the door to comic book films being seen as viable, so you have something like Seattle’s grunge scene where lots of good and different bands came to popularity at the same time.
I’m absolutely fine being wrong if RTS is revitalised!
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
I must say, the take that SC2 was at it's peak in early 2011 is a very hot take (even if it probably had greatest interest at the time, at least in NA).
I guess that depends on how you define peak. By most objective measures, as well as from a game design standpoint, it is obvious when the peak was. The proof is always in the pudding, people want to watch and play well designed games, and they don't want to play or watch poorly designed ones. There is more than just a cursory correlation between game design and popularity. I'm not sure we've seen League's peak yet, there is a reason it is so popular.
The fact many of the game design decision from HOTS were reversed (such as Photon Overcharge) is just further evidence.
Of course most of the old guard who knew this is gone, because the game got worse, thus what I said is a hot take to those who don't know. My comments below exemplify why, but Razzia of the Blizzsters highlights it better: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
Next, while photon overcharge has been removed, in the essence Protoss still have a "I solved your push" button in shield overcharge, so your example once again went nowhere.
I think my points just went way over your head. Your example attempting to my why my point went no where, is actually further evidence of my point.
You're argument against popularity only functions in a short span of time, which is... well... shortsighted again. Games become popular for many reasons, they stay popular because they are well designed. Don't compare Pokemon Go or any given flavor of the month to Chess.
Don't compare any given flavor of the month to League.
As far as all those ex-Blizzard guys jumping onto opportunity to make RTS, i see where their gambit lies but if i am brutally honest, RTS genre became niche not for lack of good designers (there's plenty of badly designed games that beat any RTS in popularity), so i'll wish them luck as per usual, but i am of pessimistic opinion of those attempts working out.
On July 02 2021 08:08 BronzeKnee wrote: Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
I don't interpret DK like that, I read it as he wants all the macro demands removed/"simplified" and keep the micro. In short turn it into a game were you click the unit you want and you get it and then the actual game is micro war with armies.
I think the problem is the opposite of what you think, if DK makes a game like that everyone can micro perfectly because there is nothing else to focus on so either the micro needs to be even more complex and demanding than now to be able to see skil difference or turn it into a hardcounter thing.
What you said is exactly what I said in my first post a few pages ago.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
David Kim was part of the problem, he was part of the Team releasing units that were the opposite of micro intensive. He was making decisions that stretched out games into Carriers vs Corrupters/Broodlords...
Either you have micro that separates people and strategies, or the car is so easy to drive anyone can do, and then it is a game of hard counters.
My point above is there is an in-between, and Blizzard never figured that out. They tried to slow down the game by putting larger maps and giving more defensive abilities, so everything wasn't a rush with crazy micro at all times, and all they did was speed the game up more.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game."
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Any gamer can play Starcraft II, have you seen how bad low Bronze League is?
So his point doesn't even make sense. Starcraft is easy to play, hard to master, as it should be. He is suggesting lowering the mastery, which he tried and failed at, and cost Stacraft II dearly.
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
I must say, the take that SC2 was at it's peak in early 2011 is a very hot take (even if it probably had greatest interest at the time, at least in NA).
I guess that depends on how you define peak. By most objective measures, as well as from a game design standpoint, it is obvious when the peak was. The proof is always in the pudding, people want to watch and play well designed games, and they don't want to play or watch poorly designed ones. There is more than just a cursory correlation between game design and popularity. I'm not sure we've seen League's peak yet, there is a reason it is so popular.
The fact many of the game design decision from HOTS were reversed (such as Photon Overcharge) is just further evidence.
Of course most of the old guard who knew this is gone, because the game got worse, thus what I said is a hot take to those who don't know. My comments below exemplify why, but Razzia of the Blizzsters highlights it better: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
Next, while photon overcharge has been removed, in the essence Protoss still have a "I solved your push" button in shield overcharge, so your example once again went nowhere.
I think my points just went way over your head. Your example attempting to my why my point went no where, is actually further evidence of my point.
As far as I am concerned, nexus photon overcharge and shield battery (with overcharge later on) are just different balancing of the same underlying design decision of 'Protoss need to have actual I Defend button because our design choices made it impossible to accomplish with just unit balancing'. Pylon overcharge just like other things from early LotV is a by-product of Blizzard having too much weed when they decided that LotV would be basically a rework of multiplayer, so i'll cheerfully ignore it. So, if you want to tell me they reversed a design decision from HotS when they just redressed it in a form that presumably is slightly less braindead? I am definitely not getting it, i admit.
You're argument against popularity only functions in a short span of time, which is... well... shortsighted again. Games become popular for many reasons, they stay popular because they are well designed. Don't compare Pokemon Go or any given flavor of the month to Chess.
Don't compare any given flavor of the month to League.
Indeed, why would i compare good games with League?
On July 02 2021 08:08 BronzeKnee wrote: Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
I don't interpret DK like that, I read it as he wants all the macro demands removed/"simplified" and keep the micro. In short turn it into a game were you click the unit you want and you get it and then the actual game is micro war with armies.
I think the problem is the opposite of what you think, if DK makes a game like that everyone can micro perfectly because there is nothing else to focus on so either the micro needs to be even more complex and demanding than now to be able to see skil difference or turn it into a hardcounter thing.
What you said is exactly what I said in my first post a few pages ago.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
David Kim was part of the problem, he was part of the Team releasing units that were the opposite of micro intensive. He was making decisions that stretched out games into Carriers vs Corrupters/Broodlords...
Either you have micro that separates people and strategies, or the car is so easy to drive anyone can do, and then it is a game of hard counters.
My point above is there is an in-between, and Blizzard never figured that out. They tried to slow down the game by putting larger maps and giving more defensive abilities, so everything wasn't a rush with crazy micro at all times, and all they did was speed the game up more.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game."
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Any gamer can play Starcraft II, have you seen how bad low Bronze League is?
So his point doesn't even make sense. Starcraft is easy to play, hard to master, as it should be. He is suggesting lowering the mastery, which he tried and failed at, and cost Stacraft II dearly.
You say there is an in between, I don't think there is so can you please elaborate what exactly that would look like? Paint some pictures of gameplay scenarios that involved the units we have now and what you would tweak to achieve what you think is possible.
On July 02 2021 08:08 BronzeKnee wrote: Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
I don't interpret DK like that, I read it as he wants all the macro demands removed/"simplified" and keep the micro. In short turn it into a game were you click the unit you want and you get it and then the actual game is micro war with armies.
I think the problem is the opposite of what you think, if DK makes a game like that everyone can micro perfectly because there is nothing else to focus on so either the micro needs to be even more complex and demanding than now to be able to see skil difference or turn it into a hardcounter thing.
What you said is exactly what I said in my first post a few pages ago.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
David Kim was part of the problem, he was part of the Team releasing units that were the opposite of micro intensive. He was making decisions that stretched out games into Carriers vs Corrupters/Broodlords...
Either you have micro that separates people and strategies, or the car is so easy to drive anyone can do, and then it is a game of hard counters.
My point above is there is an in-between, and Blizzard never figured that out. They tried to slow down the game by putting larger maps and giving more defensive abilities, so everything wasn't a rush with crazy micro at all times, and all they did was speed the game up more.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game."
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Any gamer can play Starcraft II, have you seen how bad low Bronze League is?
So his point doesn't even make sense. Starcraft is easy to play, hard to master, as it should be. He is suggesting lowering the mastery, which he tried and failed at, and cost Stacraft II dearly.
Yes, I agree with your points, maybe with exception to your point that games becomes more rock-paper-scissors the longer the games go. I mean that is true only in non mirror zerg matchups were the zerg can change composition totally after a fight. In all other cases I feel the later the games go the more you learn about what your opponent is doing, if a terran is going bio with bio upgrades how does the lategame turn into rock-paper-scissors. You've known his hand for ages and he cant easily transition into anything else, it would lack upgrades and he would need to sneakily build tons of production facilities.
The further games go the less its rock-paper-scissors in my opinion and more about positioning and spell caster micro.
I 100% agree with you about the difficulty of sc2, anyone can play the game and saying differently is incredibly dumb. However I don't know if DK is on to it, or if its a lucky coincidence but I do believe that one important factor that sc2 did wrong was that it didn't feel good to play the game if you were bad. When I was learning the game, learning was rewarding but it was also frustrating because even when I was winning I felt like shit. Making a new rts I believe it is important to make playing the game feel less frustrating and sad to play when you start out learning the game. The discrepency between what you want to do and your ability to execute is just too big in the beginning, it doesn't matter if you are a strategical mastermind that has watched 20 000 pro sc2 games, if you boot up the game for the first time and try to play you will be bad, exceptionally bad and it will not make you feel good about the game.
Thats one of the keys in making a new rts, make the learning curve feel rewarding and I am not really against the idea of having settings that you can use to reduce the APM load as long as you need to turn those settings off later in order to improve and play optimally. In sc2 if terran could automatically set barracks to allways have one marine producing and one in quee for example. It means you can don't need to think about production but it makes adjusting your composition a pain as well as always queing one unncessary unit. A setting like that would be great for being able to play the game and have fun while tryhards will turn it off and above masters everyone will have it off.
Balancing the things we are discussing here, the need to scout, making it a bad idea to mass one unit without having harcounters and the micro/apm demands is incredibly hard. DK didn't get it right but I also wonder if anyone else could have done it much better, its almost an impossible task.
On July 02 2021 08:08 BronzeKnee wrote: Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
I don't interpret DK like that, I read it as he wants all the macro demands removed/"simplified" and keep the micro. In short turn it into a game were you click the unit you want and you get it and then the actual game is micro war with armies.
I think the problem is the opposite of what you think, if DK makes a game like that everyone can micro perfectly because there is nothing else to focus on so either the micro needs to be even more complex and demanding than now to be able to see skil difference or turn it into a hardcounter thing.
What you said is exactly what I said in my first post a few pages ago.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
David Kim was part of the problem, he was part of the Team releasing units that were the opposite of micro intensive. He was making decisions that stretched out games into Carriers vs Corrupters/Broodlords...
Either you have micro that separates people and strategies, or the car is so easy to drive anyone can do, and then it is a game of hard counters.
My point above is there is an in-between, and Blizzard never figured that out. They tried to slow down the game by putting larger maps and giving more defensive abilities, so everything wasn't a rush with crazy micro at all times, and all they did was speed the game up more.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game."
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Any gamer can play Starcraft II, have you seen how bad low Bronze League is?
So his point doesn't even make sense. Starcraft is easy to play, hard to master, as it should be. He is suggesting lowering the mastery, which he tried and failed at, and cost Stacraft II dearly.
You say there is an in between, I don't think there is so can you please elaborate what exactly that would look like? Paint some pictures of gameplay scenarios that involved the units we have now and what you would tweak to achieve what you think is possible.
Not that confident on the game based on those comments but the best things for casual scene is an active ums scene and noob friendly maps like ZC fastest and BGH.Dumbing down the game itself will hurt it in the long run, making sure the map editor is great will really build the community.
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
I must say, the take that SC2 was at it's peak in early 2011 is a very hot take (even if it probably had greatest interest at the time, at least in NA).
I guess that depends on how you define peak. By most objective measures, as well as from a game design standpoint, it is obvious when the peak was. The proof is always in the pudding, people want to watch and play well designed games, and they don't want to play or watch poorly designed ones. There is more than just a cursory correlation between game design and popularity. I'm not sure we've seen League's peak yet, there is a reason it is so popular.
The fact many of the game design decision from HOTS were reversed (such as Photon Overcharge) is just further evidence.
Of course most of the old guard who knew this is gone, because the game got worse, thus what I said is a hot take to those who don't know. My comments below exemplify why, but Razzia of the Blizzsters highlights it better: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
Next, while photon overcharge has been removed, in the essence Protoss still have a "I solved your push" button in shield overcharge, so your example once again went nowhere.
I think my points just went way over your head. Your example attempting to my why my point went no where, is actually further evidence of my point.
As far as I am concerned, nexus photon overcharge and shield battery (with overcharge later on) are just different balancing of the same underlying design decision of 'Protoss need to have actual I Defend button because our design choices made it impossible to accomplish with just unit balancing'. Pylon overcharge just like other things from early LotV is a by-product of Blizzard having too much weed when they decided that LotV would be basically a rework of multiplayer, so i'll cheerfully ignore it. So, if you want to tell me they reversed a design decision from HotS when they just redressed it in a form that presumably is slightly less braindead? I am definitely not getting it, i admit.
I'll bite and explain it.
Shield Battery and Bunkers are functionality equivalent in some respects and evidence of good game design, and Pylon Overcharge isn't. Why?
Let's look at how they impact the game. Let's say Terran is doing an early attack with 4 Marauders on building Nexus at the Protoss natural with a Pylon nearby. With Pylon Overcharge, the Terran either loses all 4 Marauders or has to wait to attack. If the Protoss has more than one Overcharge available, they can delay for long periods of time. Being able to buy time hurts the viability of any timing attack.
Thus, we saw a lot of timing attacks die out in HOTS. With attacking being far less effective, the money was invested into economy, natural expansion were totally free. Both sides would forgo attacking (compared to WOL) and focus on building their economy. This meant the time spent battling turned into time spent macroing... this sped up the game considerably, more units on the field, less control and reduced opportunities to show skill and was a large part of why Starcraft declined. TheDwf covered the impact of game speed in Razzia of the Blizzsters, he was right.
So Pylon Overcharge is a powerful free ability that turned structures that were used for supply into powerful standalone defense. This isn't like Zerg paying a Drone and minerals for Spine Crawler, Pylon Overcharge only costs energy. And because it a power without gameplay mechanic as I talked about previously, it had to be over buffed to be appreciated. That is a requirement of power without gameplay mechanics (which are bad mechanics to be avoided).
But what happens with those 4 Marauders now if a Shield Battery is there but no Pylon Overcharge? They walk in, kill the Shield Battery, kill the Pylon, deny the Nexus. Because like Bunkers, Shield Batteries power is dependent on nearby units, as they essentially just add hit points to nearby units. Pylon Overcharge didn't require anything but a Pylon (which you have to build anyway) to be incredibly strong.
So the Protoss has to build units early for the Shield Batteries to work. 1 Stalker near an Overcharged Battery won't cut it either, the Marauders will kill the Battery then the Stalker. So Protoss can't focus almost entirely on their economy, units and Shield Batteries aren't free like Pylon Overcharge.
Building units and Batteries is money that used to be spent on economy... so the game slows down. And because Protoss has to build units to be safe, it also means they have units they can attack with... so the opposing player has to build more units since the Protoss could attack. And now we've slowed down the game even more.
And that is good (LOTV is a better game than HOTS), we've slowed down the game to allow players to show skill, to allow for more strategies, to allow players to be creative. Again,TheDwf covered the impact of game speed in Razzia of the Blizzsters. But let's also make the maps smaller, because paradoxically, it will slow down the game further. Short rush distances mean people will build more units and less economy.
Isn't that what David Kim wants according to Shuffleblade above? Less macro, more battling?
But then why didn't he do it? Why did every decision Blizzard made over and over violate what I just went over above? Because they didn't read the script Riot published for everyone, they didn't understand the tenets of good game design. They tried to be edgy and cool and run against the grain. And just like everything else in life, if you make dumb decisions you pay for it.
And Starcraft paid for it.
You want to see a game at proper speed focused on battling and not macro? We already had that (and have you ever seen Artosis and Tasteless so excited?), and Kim took us away from it:
You're right. Only a few elite players have ever come back from a deficit, all battles lead to critical infrastructure damage, and developers have no real reason behind the inclusion of supply buildings (or, I guess, have decided to include supply to appease all of those ravening supply fans out there).
In response to your questions: Have you ever seen a game where a player lost more units early on but had a comparable army later in the game? Even before maxing out? How do you think that happened? If there are no throttles on unit production, it can't.
To be clear: you're not actually responding to my questions. You're just asking different questions. But I'll answer. Yes, players sometimes able to recover after losing units to have a comparable army to their opponent later in the game. How does it happen? Different ways, but primarily by aggressively expanding their economy to mine the necessary resources to rebuild the units they lost faster than their opponent can build additional units; successfully defending against the inevitable threats and attacks that come with the opponent's follow-on pressure; successfully counter-attacking to create the necessary space and time to rebuild; and very good micro, army movement, and army repositioning to trade well in follow-on battles. In other words: thoughtful strategy and tactics.
Again, you might want to watch and analyze some of the great comebacks in SC2 pro matches to understand how players typically catch up when behind. Example: Maru v. Solar 2020 Super Tournament I, Game 2:
Many interesting things to observe in this game, but let's dig deeper and see how the "supple throttle theory" plays out. At the conclusion of the first big attack Maru's at 32/38 and Solar's at 43/44 (Maru lost a depot and Solar lost 2 overlords). Let's give the benefit of the doubt to the "supply throttle theory" and assume Solar has a full overlord's worth of added production tax: -100 minerals and a larva. Admittedly not insignificant. That said, within 30 seconds both players being great macro players are back to hugging their supply caps and completing their macro cycles. It's just clear that this isn't the primary driver of what's going on in this game.
When you actually analyze the game you start to key in on the same things the casters are noticing. First, it's pretty clear that the "catch up mechanism" here is the cyclone, and more specifically Maru's ridiculous "Warcraft 3 micro"--to borrow the casters' phrase--that allows him to rack up 40 kills with the 2 cycles before the six and a half minute mark. Second, the thing that's really hurting Maru's chances is the fact that he lost 12 SEVs and a barracks early on, which Maru deals with by launching counterattacks and harassment of his own to kill drones and hatches and ultimately slow down Solar's production. These are the *actual* supply throttle dynamics at play in this game. But third and most importantly: with thoughtful army positioning and movement and great micro Maru successfully holds in several major follow-on attacks in which pretty much every other player would have died. Analyze other comebacks and you'll see a lot of similar dynamics at play.
Regarding the other things you're implying I said or meant, let's avoid the strawman arguments and be really clear. I did not say "all" battles lead to critical infrastructure damage, but it's just a fact that many players get ahead by successfully attacking an opposing player's base, which often results in infrastructure getting sniped, whether that's supply, production, or upgrade infrastructure. By the way, good luck catching up if you get your key upgrades sniped. I'm sure if your opponent needs to build a marginal extra pylon or two that'll do the trick
In terms of whether only elite players make comebacks at the pro level, honestly that just depends on how you define a comeback. But within the larger spectrum of strategy games, SC2 is not a particularly comeback-friendly game. There are a few reasons for this, but most importantly SC2 is highly deterministic (I believe the only real RNG is the SEV movement when it's building). Which means it's relatively straightforward for very good players to convert substantial leads into bigger leads and ultimately into game-ending attacks and pushes (some TvT scenarios may be an exception). Interestingly, a lot of the comebacks you do see are when the losing player "rolls the dice" so to speak by hiding tech out on the map (e.g. dark shrine) or pursuing some kind of doom drop or all-in attack that they hope the opponent will not scout in time. Again, it almost never has to do with supply throttling.
There are a lot of ways to design for rubber-banding and catch-up mechanisms, and it's always a fine balance especially in strategy games between keeping things interesting and creating a game in which the "best play" wins. Remember: SC2 is not Mariokart, but I do think it's a valid question as to whether RTS needs more clear and compelling high risk-high reward comeback options to avoid having all these formulaic forced all-in games.
I'd argue that my summary of your opinion, while needlessly antagonistic, was accurate, not a strawman. But if we want to talk about strawmen, you seem to be presenting my idea as being an argument that supply is the only comeback mechanism in the game. I don't think that at all. I don't even think it's the most important one in most cases.
I'm just saying what role it does play in the game, since the question of "Why is this mechanic here?" came up. The mild catch up effect in desiring is the direct, inevitable effect of this mechanic. Even you acknowledge this in talking about the costs in the game you're analysing. You just think there are other more important factors in that game. Which you're right about, but which in no way invalidates my point.
Meanwhile you still haven't given an explanation for why so many developers over so many years have used this supply mechanic beyond it being something players are accustomed to if I'm not correct.. How did they get accustomed to it? Why did those first developers include it? The fact you don't seem to have an answer to this is why I've been dismissive towards what you're saying. All those designers weren't idiots.
If you want to see this in action, look at Game One, Percival vs ByuN, GSL Code S. I chose this because it was a mirror and unlike the ByuN Bunny games wasn't one person going mech or over super fast.
Players were fairly even throughout the early game. The first big battle came at about 6:25, with Percival and ByuN at 88 and 87 of 94 supply respectively. After some back and forth, Percival was up 12 supply at 7:10. However, as they both built up in the aftermath, ByuN evened up the supply. It took maybe thirty seconds. Why? Percival had to build two supply depots right after the engagement and ByuN didn't.
Supply isn't a huge factor in most games. And often it can be hard to figure out how much of an impact it is, given that people might be expanding, teching, or what have you, which will change the gap. In this case, ByuN went on to lose anyway. But it meant that a slight advantage didn't snowball. Percival couldn't just build more army and kill ByuN right away, he had to invest in infrastructure, and ByuN wasn't in a real long term deficit.
In summary, supply mechanics don't do big dramatic things, but they do have small equalizing effects in basically every game played. And now I'm going to stop commenting on this thread because it's about vague statements on a game that does not yet exist, and not supply mechanics.
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
I must say, the take that SC2 was at it's peak in early 2011 is a very hot take (even if it probably had greatest interest at the time, at least in NA).
I guess that depends on how you define peak. By most objective measures, as well as from a game design standpoint, it is obvious when the peak was. The proof is always in the pudding, people want to watch and play well designed games, and they don't want to play or watch poorly designed ones. There is more than just a cursory correlation between game design and popularity. I'm not sure we've seen League's peak yet, there is a reason it is so popular.
The fact many of the game design decision from HOTS were reversed (such as Photon Overcharge) is just further evidence.
Of course most of the old guard who knew this is gone, because the game got worse, thus what I said is a hot take to those who don't know. My comments below exemplify why, but Razzia of the Blizzsters highlights it better: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
Next, while photon overcharge has been removed, in the essence Protoss still have a "I solved your push" button in shield overcharge, so your example once again went nowhere.
I think my points just went way over your head. Your example attempting to my why my point went no where, is actually further evidence of my point.
As far as I am concerned, nexus photon overcharge and shield battery (with overcharge later on) are just different balancing of the same underlying design decision of 'Protoss need to have actual I Defend button because our design choices made it impossible to accomplish with just unit balancing'. Pylon overcharge just like other things from early LotV is a by-product of Blizzard having too much weed when they decided that LotV would be basically a rework of multiplayer, so i'll cheerfully ignore it. So, if you want to tell me they reversed a design decision from HotS when they just redressed it in a form that presumably is slightly less braindead? I am definitely not getting it, i admit.
I'll bite and explain it.
Shield Battery and Bunkers are functionality equivalent in some respects and evidence of good game design, and Pylon Overcharge isn't. Why?
Let's look at how they impact the game. Let's say Terran is doing an early attack with 4 Marauders on building Nexus at the Protoss natural with a Pylon nearby. With Pylon Overcharge, the Terran either loses all 4 Marauders or has to wait to attack. If the Protoss has more than one Overcharge available, they can delay for long periods of time. Being able to buy time hurts the viability of any timing attack.
Thus, we saw a lot of timing attacks die out in HOTS. With attacking being far less effective, the money was invested into economy, natural expansion were totally free. Both sides would forgo attacking (compared to WOL) and focus on building their economy. This meant the time spent battling turned into time spent macroing... this sped up the game considerably, more units on the field, less control and reduced opportunities to show skill and was a large part of why Starcraft declined. TheDwf covered the impact of game speed in Razzia of the Blizzsters, he was right.
So Pylon Overcharge is a powerful free ability that turned structures that were used for supply into powerful standalone defense. This isn't like Zerg paying a Drone and minerals for Spine Crawler, Pylon Overcharge only costs energy. And because it a power without gameplay mechanic as I talked about previously, it had to be over buffed to be appreciated. That is a requirement of power without gameplay mechanics (which are bad mechanics to be avoided).
But what happens with those 4 Marauders now if a Shield Battery is there but no Pylon Overcharge? They walk in, kill the Shield Battery, kill the Pylon, deny the Nexus. Because like Bunkers, Shield Batteries power is dependent on nearby units, as they essentially just add hit points to nearby units. Pylon Overcharge didn't require anything but a Pylon (which you have to build anyway) to be incredibly strong.
So the Protoss has to build units early for the Shield Batteries to work. 1 Stalker near an Overcharged Battery won't cut it either, the Marauders will kill the Battery then the Stalker. So Protoss can't focus almost entirely on their economy, units and Shield Batteries aren't free like Pylon Overcharge.
Building units and Batteries is money that used to be spent on economy... so the game slows down. And because Protoss has to build units to be safe, it also means they have units they can attack with... so the opposing player has to build more units since the Protoss could attack. And now we've slowed down the game even more.
And that is good (LOTV is a better game than HOTS), we've slowed down the game to allow players to show skill, to allow for more strategies, to allow players to be creative. Again,TheDwf covered the impact of game speed in Razzia of the Blizzsters. But let's also make the maps smaller, because paradoxically, it will slow down the game further. Short rush distances mean people will build more units and less economy.
Isn't that what David Kim wants according to Shuffleblade above? Less macro, more battling?
But then why didn't he do it? Why did every decision Blizzard made over and over violate what I just went over above? Because they didn't read the script Riot published for everyone, they didn't understand the tenets of good game design. They tried to be edgy and cool and run against the grain. And just like everything else in life, if you make dumb decisions you pay for it.
And Starcraft paid for it.
You want to see a game at proper speed focused on battling and not macro? We already had that (and have you ever seen Artosis and Tasteless so excited?), and Kim took us away from it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUb40awTL0k&ab_channel=lepya
Starcraft 1 shield batteries were good game design. Starcraft 2 shield batteries are bad game design and ruin any sort of early game from the opponent. It's literally a "build this structure and look away, not have to worry about microing against a banshee, or a hellion, or a reaper. In starcraft 1, you had to manually use the shield battery and target the unit that you wanted shields to recharge on, which was good game design because it promoted interaction with the player. Super battery was the icing on the cake, it's entirely way too strong. The bunker and shield battery are not functional equivalents. Shield batteries scale well throughout the entire game, in every matchup. Bunkers do not. Shield batteries do not require supply to be effective, bunkers require supply in the form of marines to go inside the bunker which would take away supply that could be in the main army during engagements. Shield batteries heal the shields on units and structures, bunkers only attack units as long as there are marines inside of the bunker. Bunkers don't heal. Shield batteries and bunkers are not functionally equivalent by any means. Lastly, Don't want to ever have to defend an expansion as protoss? NP, just build a bunch of cannons and shield batteries at the nexus, It's stupid and does not promote interaction between players. Static defense is not suppose to be that strong at all. And if you do somehow manage to crack that crazy static defense of batteries/cannons, protoss can still recall to defend! It's absurd.
Also, I feel like i have to mention this because someone had mentioned earlier in the thread but the whole removing any sort of macro mechanics and the idea of just choosing what units you want and boom you have them is stupid because It's the equivalent of a micro battle map. We already have those and it would be bad if the game was limited to just that. Macro mechanics and unit build time and supply are important staples to any [good]rts. If what you want is to just automatically have your units and fight, just play a micro battles map, that's literally what that is. We don't need a game designed to be only that because it lacks substance and depth entirely.
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
I must say, the take that SC2 was at it's peak in early 2011 is a very hot take (even if it probably had greatest interest at the time, at least in NA).
I guess that depends on how you define peak. By most objective measures, as well as from a game design standpoint, it is obvious when the peak was. The proof is always in the pudding, people want to watch and play well designed games, and they don't want to play or watch poorly designed ones. There is more than just a cursory correlation between game design and popularity. I'm not sure we've seen League's peak yet, there is a reason it is so popular.
The fact many of the game design decision from HOTS were reversed (such as Photon Overcharge) is just further evidence.
Of course most of the old guard who knew this is gone, because the game got worse, thus what I said is a hot take to those who don't know. My comments below exemplify why, but Razzia of the Blizzsters highlights it better: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
Next, while photon overcharge has been removed, in the essence Protoss still have a "I solved your push" button in shield overcharge, so your example once again went nowhere.
I think my points just went way over your head. Your example attempting to my why my point went no where, is actually further evidence of my point.
As far as I am concerned, nexus photon overcharge and shield battery (with overcharge later on) are just different balancing of the same underlying design decision of 'Protoss need to have actual I Defend button because our design choices made it impossible to accomplish with just unit balancing'. Pylon overcharge just like other things from early LotV is a by-product of Blizzard having too much weed when they decided that LotV would be basically a rework of multiplayer, so i'll cheerfully ignore it. So, if you want to tell me they reversed a design decision from HotS when they just redressed it in a form that presumably is slightly less braindead? I am definitely not getting it, i admit.
I'll bite and explain it.
Shield Battery and Bunkers are functionality equivalent in some respects and evidence of good game design, and Pylon Overcharge isn't. Why?
Let's look at how they impact the game. Let's say Terran is doing an early attack with 4 Marauders on building Nexus at the Protoss natural with a Pylon nearby. With Pylon Overcharge, the Terran either loses all 4 Marauders or has to wait to attack. If the Protoss has more than one Overcharge available, they can delay for long periods of time. Being able to buy time hurts the viability of any timing attack.
Thus, we saw a lot of timing attacks die out in HOTS. With attacking being far less effective, the money was invested into economy, natural expansion were totally free. Both sides would forgo attacking (compared to WOL) and focus on building their economy. This meant the time spent battling turned into time spent macroing... this sped up the game considerably, more units on the field, less control and reduced opportunities to show skill and was a large part of why Starcraft declined. TheDwf covered the impact of game speed in Razzia of the Blizzsters, he was right.
So Pylon Overcharge is a powerful free ability that turned structures that were used for supply into powerful standalone defense. This isn't like Zerg paying a Drone and minerals for Spine Crawler, Pylon Overcharge only costs energy. And because it a power without gameplay mechanic as I talked about previously, it had to be over buffed to be appreciated. That is a requirement of power without gameplay mechanics (which are bad mechanics to be avoided).
But what happens with those 4 Marauders now if a Shield Battery is there but no Pylon Overcharge? They walk in, kill the Shield Battery, kill the Pylon, deny the Nexus. Because like Bunkers, Shield Batteries power is dependent on nearby units, as they essentially just add hit points to nearby units. Pylon Overcharge didn't require anything but a Pylon (which you have to build anyway) to be incredibly strong.
So the Protoss has to build units early for the Shield Batteries to work. 1 Stalker near an Overcharged Battery won't cut it either, the Marauders will kill the Battery then the Stalker. So Protoss can't focus almost entirely on their economy, units and Shield Batteries aren't free like Pylon Overcharge.
Building units and Batteries is money that used to be spent on economy... so the game slows down. And because Protoss has to build units to be safe, it also means they have units they can attack with... so the opposing player has to build more units since the Protoss could attack. And now we've slowed down the game even more.
And that is good (LOTV is a better game than HOTS), we've slowed down the game to allow players to show skill, to allow for more strategies, to allow players to be creative. Again,TheDwf covered the impact of game speed in Razzia of the Blizzsters. But let's also make the maps smaller, because paradoxically, it will slow down the game further. Short rush distances mean people will build more units and less economy.
Isn't that what David Kim wants according to Shuffleblade above? Less macro, more battling?
But then why didn't he do it? Why did every decision Blizzard made over and over violate what I just went over above? Because they didn't read the script Riot published for everyone, they didn't understand the tenets of good game design. They tried to be edgy and cool and run against the grain. And just like everything else in life, if you make dumb decisions you pay for it.
And Starcraft paid for it.
You want to see a game at proper speed focused on battling and not macro? We already had that (and have you ever seen Artosis and Tasteless so excited?), and Kim took us away from it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUb40awTL0k&ab_channel=lepya
As i said, i ignore pylon overcharge entirely and compare nexus overcharge with shield batteries+ present battery overcharge. Both are designated "I defend your push" buttons, the difference being that nexus overcharge is completely self-sufficient (and braindead on top of enabling over the top greed), but that's not design choice, it's balancing choice, which you happen to treat as design choice. As the other guy above me put it, SC2's shield batteries are not exactly the most interactive of buildings either. To the point where they are actually even more self-sufficient as counter to early harass than nexus/pylon overcharges.
In fact, your description of 4 marauder attack makes it clear to me why Blizzard had this godawful idea of creating pylon overcharge in the first place. Killing pylons is relatively easy, so from their shortsighted perspective, making overcharge be activated on something 'easy' to kill would be naturally a fine way to nerf photon overcharge to prevent excess greed nexus version enabled on top of greater versatility in coverage.
As for this WhiteRa vs MC game... uhm, is the classic BO loss of blink 4 gate against 3 gate robo worth anything being hyped over? Like, it probably was hype as fuck in it's relevant context. But we are 10 years later, for various both good and bad reasons foreigners beating Koreans is not something to be hyped over anymore, and there were hundreds of games like that later on. Enough that 3 gate robo was put as the safest opener in PvP in every Protoss guide i have seen in early 2012 (my Protoss is by far my worst though, so there was probably a safer build still).
Can anyone tell me why Uncapped Games and Frost Giant both make an RTS game? Both consist of a lot of Blizzard veterans! I'd have liked it if both teams merged and created just one RTS. There is still the Age Of Empires franchise. We definitely don't want too many RTS games, don't we?
On July 03 2021 23:10 [N3O]r3d33m3r wrote: Can anyone tell me why Uncapped Games and Frost Giant both make an RTS game? Both consist of a lot of Blizzard veterans! I'd have liked it if both teams merged and created just one RTS. There is still the Age Of Empires franchise. We definitely don't want too many RTS games, don't we?
I think it's best of all the great minds work together to make one great rts game but sometimes in that situation designers butt heads when it comes to ideas/philosophies or vision for the game.
Don't we? I do not. I want a lot of RTS games competing against each other. The market is there. If all those "blizzard veterans" really wanted to work together they would be working together. I don't really see why you would want to merge different teams with possibly different visions to work together that all.
On July 01 2021 23:44 Andi_Goldberger wrote: I find it sort of amusing how years ago the conversation around SC2 was that it was way too easy and the mechanics weren't difficult enough, making it less appealing to hardcore people thus weakening its playerbase while today every single "new" RTS developer is saying the complete opposite. Just a weird observation I have had, maybe its just a warped perception of the discourse back then on my part :p
That's because SCBW had a large established userbase that SC2 tried tapping into at its release.
Newer RTS games instead are trying to appeal to people that are not already playing RTS games, hence the diametrical opposition.
On July 01 2021 23:44 Andi_Goldberger wrote: I find it sort of amusing how years ago the conversation around SC2 was that it was way too easy and the mechanics weren't difficult enough, making it less appealing to hardcore people thus weakening its playerbase while today every single "new" RTS developer is saying the complete opposite. Just a weird observation I have had, maybe its just a warped perception of the discourse back then on my part :p
That's because SCBW had a large established userbase that SC2 tried tapping into at its release.
Newer RTS games instead are trying to appeal to people that are not already playing RTS games, hence the diametrical opposition.
Right but it has been revealed over time that less mechanically demanding = less exciting to play. It's a recipe for an unsustainable playerbase because the games aren't rewarding enough to make players want to continuously play the game. On paper, it sounds like a good idea to appeal to a broader audience by making the game easy to play but that approach shoots itself in the foot long term as we have seen in the past. If you want to appeal to a broad audience, aggressively market the game. You want to appeal to a large audience, Do the same exact player rewards/player recruitment program that riot games did. They actually gave you something if you helped grow the playerbase.
On July 02 2021 08:08 BronzeKnee wrote: David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
How much input did David Kim have on the sc2 unit designs? I was under the impression that he was given the designs and had to balance them more or less as-is. E.g. he could change the numbers of something like fungal, but not the nature of the spell (being a DoT + root). It's been a while given that I noped out of sc2 during late WoL when I learned of the swarm host. WoL felt horrible in design, but overall good in balance.
Overall I agree with this post regarding the poor state of sc2 design. For that reason I'm hoping DK didn't have much or any authority over the unit designs or else I can hardly have anything but low expectations for this RTS
On July 01 2021 23:44 Andi_Goldberger wrote: I find it sort of amusing how years ago the conversation around SC2 was that it was way too easy and the mechanics weren't difficult enough, making it less appealing to hardcore people thus weakening its playerbase while today every single "new" RTS developer is saying the complete opposite. Just a weird observation I have had, maybe its just a warped perception of the discourse back then on my part :p
That's because SCBW had a large established userbase that SC2 tried tapping into at its release.
Newer RTS games instead are trying to appeal to people that are not already playing RTS games, hence the diametrical opposition.
Right but it has been revealed over time that less mechanically demanding = less exciting to play. It's a recipe for an unsustainable playerbase because the games aren't rewarding enough to make players want to continuously play the game. On paper, it sounds like a good idea to appeal to a broader audience by making the game easy to play but that approach shoots itself in the foot long term as we have seen in the past. If you want to appeal to a broad audience, aggressively market the game. You want to appeal to a large audience, Do the same exact player rewards/player recruitment program that riot games did. They actually gave you something if you helped grow the playerbase.
In what way was that ever revealed? Mobas are so popular partly because they're 'easier' to play than rts games, mechanically that is. It's just more fun for a large portion of people playing games. Marketing is great to make people aware, but they won't just stick with it, the appeal is in the game itself.
There are countless of factors to consider for this ofc, and yeah in general the game needs reward time investment, the ability to noticeably get better at it. But that doesn't mean one cannot look at rts as a genre and reduce its mechanical requirements, and maybe change other aspects which might not work as well as they could. It won't be for everyone, but yeah if you want to produce an rts game which is truly popular, something people actually want to play in a multiplayer setting, there is no doubt in my mind that you have to lower the mechanical burden and introduce things i have talked about in this thread already (less variance in game outcomes and more importantly a more direct game mechanic which makes people interact with each other ) on top of countless other things ofc. If David Kim just makes every unit sluggish to solve that perceived problem (like other rts games have done *cough grey goo cough*), then it'll fail yeah.
On July 03 2021 23:10 [N3O]r3d33m3r wrote: Can anyone tell me why Uncapped Games and Frost Giant both make an RTS game? Both consist of a lot of Blizzard veterans! I'd have liked it if both teams merged and created just one RTS. There is still the Age Of Empires franchise. We definitely don't want too many RTS games, don't we?
we're gonna end up with more RTS games than there are players lol
Great news. I'm sure they have plenty ideas about how a next gen RTS should play but I hope they're also giving much thoughts about the game's business model and the incentives for players to keep on playing the game in the long run. Lots of RTS in the past have suffered from poorly thought out business models (Sc2 included imo).
On July 03 2021 23:10 [N3O]r3d33m3r wrote: Can anyone tell me why Uncapped Games and Frost Giant both make an RTS game? Both consist of a lot of Blizzard veterans! I'd have liked it if both teams merged and created just one RTS. There is still the Age Of Empires franchise. We definitely don't want too many RTS games, don't we?
we're gonna end up with more RTS games than there are players lol
Acutally i thought many times to this problem and i don t find solutions. If light units must die faster against aoe, you have to spread them isn t it ? How can you create a better "pathfinding" while you have to ask to your units to attack separetly (i.e not with a A-move).
The actual pathfinding of SC2 seems to be one of the best achievement of this game
On July 03 2021 23:10 [N3O]r3d33m3r wrote: Can anyone tell me why Uncapped Games and Frost Giant both make an RTS game? Both consist of a lot of Blizzard veterans! I'd have liked it if both teams merged and created just one RTS. There is still the Age Of Empires franchise. We definitely don't want too many RTS games, don't we?
we're gonna end up with more RTS games than there are players lol
options are good, competition is also good.
Indeed, and having a burst of interest for a bit in RTS that leads to even one of those competing games making a solid and sustainable game and business model would be amazing for the RTS scene.
On July 01 2021 23:44 Andi_Goldberger wrote: I find it sort of amusing how years ago the conversation around SC2 was that it was way too easy and the mechanics weren't difficult enough, making it less appealing to hardcore people thus weakening its playerbase while today every single "new" RTS developer is saying the complete opposite. Just a weird observation I have had, maybe its just a warped perception of the discourse back then on my part :p
That's because SCBW had a large established userbase that SC2 tried tapping into at its release.
Newer RTS games instead are trying to appeal to people that are not already playing RTS games, hence the diametrical opposition.
Right but it has been revealed over time that less mechanically demanding = less exciting to play. It's a recipe for an unsustainable playerbase because the games aren't rewarding enough to make players want to continuously play the game. On paper, it sounds like a good idea to appeal to a broader audience by making the game easy to play but that approach shoots itself in the foot long term as we have seen in the past. If you want to appeal to a broad audience, aggressively market the game. You want to appeal to a large audience, Do the same exact player rewards/player recruitment program that riot games did. They actually gave you something if you helped grow the playerbase.
Is that the case for me? Sure. I have gaming as a hobby and take it more seriously than the average gamer. Some days I don't play because I'm just unable to perform at the level I'd want to.
Is it the case for everyone? No, far from it. The average guy wants to come home from his job at the shoestore, put his wife Peggy to bed and then crank out a couple of casual games. They just want to blow off some steam, not compete in the OSL or something. Most people just don't want or need the complexity that a very competetive sport entails. They don't care about competing or any of that jazz. The ones that do are a minority. Can a game tailored towards that minority be profitable? Yea, sure. Is catering to that portion of the consumer base the best financial decision? No.
And that's the crux of the problem. Gaming has become way more mainstream, and with that come certain stipulations. If a game of the magnitude of Broodwar would get published today it would get shit on and probably a load of 3/10 reviews. Broodwar was a lucky accident, a combination having the right things in the right time. Times have changed, and the game publishers have changed with them, because business has the imperative of making the most money.
On July 01 2021 23:44 Andi_Goldberger wrote: I find it sort of amusing how years ago the conversation around SC2 was that it was way too easy and the mechanics weren't difficult enough, making it less appealing to hardcore people thus weakening its playerbase while today every single "new" RTS developer is saying the complete opposite. Just a weird observation I have had, maybe its just a warped perception of the discourse back then on my part :p
That's because SCBW had a large established userbase that SC2 tried tapping into at its release.
Newer RTS games instead are trying to appeal to people that are not already playing RTS games, hence the diametrical opposition.
Right but it has been revealed over time that less mechanically demanding = less exciting to play. It's a recipe for an unsustainable playerbase because the games aren't rewarding enough to make players want to continuously play the game. On paper, it sounds like a good idea to appeal to a broader audience by making the game easy to play but that approach shoots itself in the foot long term as we have seen in the past. If you want to appeal to a broad audience, aggressively market the game. You want to appeal to a large audience, Do the same exact player rewards/player recruitment program that riot games did. They actually gave you something if you helped grow the playerbase.
Is that the case for me? Sure. I have gaming as a hobby and take it more seriously than the average gamer. Some days I don't play because I'm just unable to perform at the level I'd want to.
Is it the case for everyone? No, far from it. The average guy wants to come home from his job at the shoestore, put his wife Peggy to bed and then crank out a couple of casual games. They just want to blow off some steam, not compete in the OSL or something. Most people just don't want or need the complexity that a very competetive sport entails. They don't care about competing or any of that jazz. The ones that do are a minority. Can a game tailored towards that minority be profitable? Yea, sure. Is catering to that portion of the consumer base the best financial decision? No.
And that's the crux of the problem. Gaming has become way more mainstream, and with that come certain stipulations. If a game of the magnitude of Broodwar would get published today it would get shit on and probably a load of 3/10 reviews. Broodwar was a lucky accident, a combination having the right things in the right time. Times have changed, and the game publishers have changed with them, because business has the imperative not of making the most money.
I agree 100%. If BW came out today with improved graphics but kept the interface and pathfinding it would be considered an unplayable mess.
I think the gaming studio that manages to make a game with deep macro, micro and strategies but with a moba-like interface and learning curve will be the winner.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
I mean has anyone ever made an RTS where the fastest player is the best player? Seems like a straw man. I would've thought if that was any game, it's BW, but of course anyone who has followed BW knows that would be an awful description of it.
I think probably the two most famous players of all time are boxer and flash, who were both extremely strategic players... Most famous protoss player probably Bisu? For revolutionizing PvZ
It just seems weird to make it a goal for competitive play to not require extremely good mechanics and fast play. I think the other new RTS's in development still want that for competitive play and are figuring out ways to make their games more enjoyable for slower players. Maybe they figure RTS players will go to the other new RTS's in development and they're going to try to capture more players from other genres.
I think it is a strawman. I think the people arguing that RTS games need to be easier are trying to guide development of a game to solve their own perceived reasons for being bad at the game.
Unfortunately, by removing all of the perceived hard parts of the game, you usually remove most of the game entirely.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
I mean has anyone ever made an RTS where the fastest player is the best player? Seems like a straw man. I would've thought if that was any game, it's BW, but of course anyone who has followed BW knows that would be an awful description of it.
I think probably the two most famous players of all time are boxer and flash, who were both extremely strategic players... Most famous protoss player probably Bisu? For revolutionizing PvZ
It just seems weird to make it a goal for competitive play to not require extremely good mechanics and fast play. I think the other new RTS's in development still want that for competitive play and are figuring out ways to make their games more enjoyable for slower players. Maybe they figure RTS players will go to the other new RTS's in development and they're going to try to capture more players from other genres.
I think it is a strawman. I think the people arguing that RTS games need to be easier are trying to guide development of a game to solve their own perceived reasons for being bad at the game.
Unfortunately, by removing all of the perceived hard parts of the game, you usually remove most of the game entirely.
Generally the complaint is more that people want to be doing strategic things, and mechanical demands can stop people getting to that stage. Agree or disagree with their assessment generally it tends to be making a game easier in one aspect so that more people can stretch themselves in another aspect.
And there probably is something to that too, most decent guides I’ve ever seen basically all share a fix your mechanics/base macro before doing anything else in the game.
On the other hand the combination of managing a lot, choosing what to manage and the sheer mechanical chops required aren’t some annoying hurdle to overcome, but a big part of the appeal in the first place.
Nony’s mentioning of Bisu’s dismantling of Savior being a case in point. The beauty of that was it was an hitherto unseen style and strategic approach to a matchup that required Bisu’s particular mechanical skillset to execute.
A big, big part, for me anyway over what this studio puts out, or Frost Giant given that they have discussed similar ideas is, what stays in place if you do make it more approachable and user friendly?
Something like SC2 with less macro is just, SC2 with less. Whereas if other mechanics, more use of terrain or longer more microable combat is the trade off then, that’s something else to do.
On July 03 2021 23:10 [N3O]r3d33m3r wrote: Can anyone tell me why Uncapped Games and Frost Giant both make an RTS game? Both consist of a lot of Blizzard veterans! I'd have liked it if both teams merged and created just one RTS. There is still the Age Of Empires franchise. We definitely don't want too many RTS games, don't we?
we're gonna end up with more RTS games than there are players lol
options are good, competition is also good.
idk it seems reminiscent of years ago when everyone was trying to make arena shooters suddenly (Toxikk, Reflex, the new Unreal Tournament, I think a Tribes game too, etc), the player base was divided between all of them and then they all died very quickly or never even really had a player base to begin with
On July 03 2021 23:10 [N3O]r3d33m3r wrote: Can anyone tell me why Uncapped Games and Frost Giant both make an RTS game? Both consist of a lot of Blizzard veterans! I'd have liked it if both teams merged and created just one RTS. There is still the Age Of Empires franchise. We definitely don't want too many RTS games, don't we?
we're gonna end up with more RTS games than there are players lol
options are good, competition is also good.
idk it seems reminiscent of years ago when everyone was trying to make arena shooters suddenly (Toxikk, Reflex, the new Unreal Tournament, I think a Tribes game too, etc), the player base was divided between all of them and then they all died very quickly or never even really had a player base to begin with
Yeah that was pretty painful for me, I was really hoping at least Quake would bring home the bacon, especially after UT got canned.
My brain has not picked well, my favourite genres being RTS and arena shooters haha.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
I mean has anyone ever made an RTS where the fastest player is the best player? Seems like a straw man. I would've thought if that was any game, it's BW, but of course anyone who has followed BW knows that would be an awful description of it.
I think probably the two most famous players of all time are boxer and flash, who were both extremely strategic players... Most famous protoss player probably Bisu? For revolutionizing PvZ
It just seems weird to make it a goal for competitive play to not require extremely good mechanics and fast play. I think the other new RTS's in development still want that for competitive play and are figuring out ways to make their games more enjoyable for slower players. Maybe they figure RTS players will go to the other new RTS's in development and they're going to try to capture more players from other genres.
I think it is a strawman. I think the people arguing that RTS games need to be easier are trying to guide development of a game to solve their own perceived reasons for being bad at the game.
Unfortunately, by removing all of the perceived hard parts of the game, you usually remove most of the game entirely.
DOTA (the original USMB) was popular because people liked using heroes but managing all the micro and macro of the game was too dauting. One of the most common types of games right now are auto-battlers (HS most viewed mode are battlegrounds and duels). If you check steam the most succesful strategy games that have been released have been 4X games (Hearths of Iron, CIV) and rogue-like base builders (Frostpunk, They are billions, Rimworld). And thats not even talking about the resurgence of card-games.
If anything TOO SLOW games are way wayyyy more popular in the strategy sphere than TOO FAST ones. The only thing is that there hasn't been an e-sport made strategy game that has been popular but thinking that it has something to do with complexity is stupid, e-sports happen organically and aren't the only measure for success.
I think the problem with these interviews is that David Kim never talks about how to make a fun multiplayer RTS. An enjoyable game that you and other people would want to play and through that want to watch. And perhaps that isn't the game the studio wants to make. Talking about making the game easier, talking about how blizz veterans are in the company simply points to that all they are interested in is using the pulling power of being Blizzard Veteran (tm) to sell as much as possible without regard or wrestling with whether the game is fun to play or not. Because ultimately the way I see it, Blizzard's failure in SC2 was despite the initial hook of the then stellar Blizzard name and the starcraft IP to gain a huge audience, to make a game fun and interesting enough to continue playing, whilst their competitors in the RTS-like space, League of Legends and Dota2 continue to attract new players and retain older players.
I recently went through the new player experience in another really difficult to learn genre, of tactical shooters. I have to say I have a different take now than I did before. If you look at a game like Valorant it’s is brutally hard on new players in general staying true to how csgo plays, small hit boxes lightning reflexes and accuracy being a basic requirement just like macro is in rts. It requires most new players to consistently play aim trainers just to make it to silver. Despite the high barrier to entry it’s hugely popular. New games don’t have to be easy to draw an audience of casual players. They just need to be good and marketed well.
On July 06 2021 09:50 washikie wrote: I recently went through the new player experience in another really difficult to learn genre, of tactical shooters. I have to say I have a different take now than I did before. If you look at a game like Valorant it’s is brutally hard on new players in general staying true to how csgo plays, small hit boxes lightning reflexes and accuracy being a basic requirement just like macro is in rts. It requires most new players to consistently play aim trainers just to make it to silver. Despite the high barrier to entry it’s hugely popular. New games don’t have to be easy to draw an audience of casual players. They just need to be good and marketed well.
To me a barrier is to what degree you can just play the game and over time get better, or at least have fun to the point where you maybe start reading up a bit down the line.
Just so happens I’ve followed SC and played intermittently for forever, there’s so much accumulated knowledge there though and it’s not stuff I’ve obtained within the game client. Console CoD way back in the day I got very, very good at just from playing the game.
There’s way, way more could be done in a game like SC to keep things more cohesive. Basic tutorials and content could be embedded in the client, I’m sure pro players would be happy to do mini-guides for various concepts too.
On July 06 2021 09:50 washikie wrote: I recently went through the new player experience in another really difficult to learn genre, of tactical shooters. I have to say I have a different take now than I did before. If you look at a game like Valorant it’s is brutally hard on new players in general staying true to how csgo plays, small hit boxes lightning reflexes and accuracy being a basic requirement just like macro is in rts. It requires most new players to consistently play aim trainers just to make it to silver. Despite the high barrier to entry it’s hugely popular. New games don’t have to be easy to draw an audience of casual players. They just need to be good and marketed well.
Hm i think there is a meaningful difference still, in sc2 as a new player you wouldn't have any baseline expectation at any given game, you'd try and get a hold of the fundamental game mechanics like building workers, adding production, producing army, but nothing in the game makes you get to the fun part, the interaction with your opponent. Also you could lose in 2 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, whatever it is because there are a ton of potential (abusive) possibilities being thrown at you which you have to learn to counter or simply lose then and there. In a game like valorant (or csgo), you get the fundamental gameplay no matter what skill level you are, the game forces you to experience it. You will play attack vs defender every single round, you will shoot at people and probably use some of your utlity / abilities (valorant does a better job there than csgo) That any game needs some 'mastery' of fundamentals to get decent at, sure, but what's important is how much fun one can get out of the early learning phase, how much of the gaming experience which is supposed to happen you can go through even on a really low level of skill. RTS (well the starcraft games are what i truly focus on here) are rather bad at that, sc2 better than bw ofc, but still lightyears away from a lot of other popular games.
That's what some people here don't seem to get, david kim (and the other devs) don't want to reduce mastery, they want to reduce obstacles (to have fun) for new players. Maybe you inherently remove some mastery by doing that, but honestly at some point this is almost meaningless, what matters is that the game is fundamentally fun for all kinds of players, but probably most importantly for players who don't play it hours and hours every day to master it, that's a small % of the playerbase. It should give the opportunity for these to exist, but you don't need bw gamedesign, or even sc2 gamedesign for that, there are lots and lots of opportunities to achieve depth.
On July 06 2021 09:50 washikie wrote: I recently went through the new player experience in another really difficult to learn genre, of tactical shooters. I have to say I have a different take now than I did before. If you look at a game like Valorant it’s is brutally hard on new players in general staying true to how csgo plays, small hit boxes lightning reflexes and accuracy being a basic requirement just like macro is in rts. It requires most new players to consistently play aim trainers just to make it to silver. Despite the high barrier to entry it’s hugely popular. New games don’t have to be easy to draw an audience of casual players. They just need to be good and marketed well.
Hm i think there is a meaningful difference still, in sc2 as a new player you wouldn't have any baseline expectation at any given game, you'd try and get a hold of the fundamental game mechanics like building workers, adding production, producing army, but nothing in the game makes you get to the fun part, the interaction with your opponent. Also you could lose in 2 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, whatever it is because there are a ton of potential (abusive) possibilities being thrown at you which you have to learn to counter or simply lose then and there. In a game like valorant (or csgo), you get the fundamental gameplay no matter what skill level you are, the game forces you to experience it. You will play attack vs defender every single round, you will shoot at people and probably use some of your utlity / abilities (valorant does a better job there than csgo) That any game needs some 'mastery' of fundamentals to get decent at, sure, but what's important is how much fun one can get out of the early learning phase, how much of the gaming experience which is supposed to happen you can go through even on a really low level of skill. RTS (well the starcraft games are what i truly focus on here) are rather bad at that, sc2 better than bw ofc, but still lightyears away from a lot of other popular games.
That's what some people here don't seem to get, david kim (and the other devs) don't want to reduce mastery, they want to reduce obstacles (to have fun) for new players. Maybe you inherently remove some mastery by doing that, but honestly at some point this is almost meaningless, what matters is that the game is fundamentally fun for all kinds of players, but probably most importantly for players who don't play it hours and hours every day to master it, that's a small % of the playerbase. It should give the opportunity for these to exist, but you don't need bw gamedesign, or even sc2 gamedesign for that, there are lots and lots of opportunities to achieve depth.
How much easier do you actually think the game can be to play? Lets pretend they are trying to apply your suggestion of removing obstacles for new players in sc2, Could you provide some examples of tweaks or changes? What does it look like? What are some of these obstacles in sc2 that make the game harder to play for new players getting in the game?
"what matters is that the game is fundamentally fun for all kinds of players, but probably most importantly for players who don't play it hours and hours every day to master it, that's a small % of the playerbase." - This is what lower leagues are for, people who don't play often who haven't fully mastered game. They still get to have fun because they are playing against people of their skill level.
I mean that totally depends on what the game they are trying to develop looks like, you cannot just change a few things about sc2 in particular without changing the whole game. For example, if you wanna make the game 'easier' mechanically, it probably needs to have more opportunities on the strategic side of things to make up for that. That's part of why mobas still work so well, especially dota. I am sure whatever game designers come up with, there will be a ton of hardcore starcraft fans who won't like it, just like bw players didn't like a lot of the changes in sc2. Personally i am not too concerned with that, if the game is good in its own right i couldn't care less if it removes some of the macro aspects and differentiators for example, i don't think that adding more production and hitting every cycle perfectly is necessarily key to a great rts experience, anything which makes the pvp interactions fun and meaningful is imo more important than making sure people win because they have a few more units.
"what matters is that the game is fundamentally fun for all kinds of players, but probably most importantly for players who don't play it hours and hours every day to master it, that's a small % of the playerbase." - This is what lower leagues are for, people who don't play often who haven't fully mastered game. They still get to have fun because they are playing against people of their skill level.
That's a bad take, one doesn't automatically have fun just because the game is 'fair' and produces 50% winrate. I think this is actually by far starcraft's biggest weakness, making people have fun on low skill levels in its standard pvp setting. Why? Because it doesn't create interactions between the players in nearly the same way other games do, as i said above, in valorant or csgo you still basically have the same core gameplay as on high lvl, you attack and defend the sites which inherently makes you interact with your enemies every single round, every game. There are clear expectations and results. In starcraft that's not the case at all, usually new players won't get to experience fun aspects of starcraft from the get to, and even worse if they try and do, that's usually detrimental for their gameplay, if you wanna micro your units, if you wanna attack the opponent and do stuff, your macro will fail and you'll most likely lose. This is even more apparent in bw ofc, how many games have i played where i basically don't interact with the opponent on any meaningful level beyond a clicks and win because i had a better economy and more macro power. These are imo problems of rts games and very difficult to solve in a way which makes sense for new players + people who like rts right now, i wonder if anyone will do it well or not.
On July 07 2021 02:17 The_Red_Viper wrote: I mean that totally depends on what the game they are trying to develop looks like, you cannot just change a few things about sc2 in particular without changing the whole game. For example, if you wanna make the game 'easier' mechanically, it probably needs to have more opportunities on the strategic side of things to make up for that. That's part of why mobas still work so well, especially dota. I am sure whatever game designers come up with, there will be a ton of hardcore starcraft fans who won't like it, just like bw players didn't like a lot of the changes in sc2. Personally i am not too concerned with that, if the game is good in its own right i couldn't care less if it removes some of the macro aspects and differentiators for example, i don't think that adding more production and hitting every cycle perfectly is necessarily key to a great rts experience, anything which makes the pvp interactions fun and meaningful is imo more important than making sure people win because they have a few more units.
There must be something that sparks the "make the game easier to play", What is it about sc2 that makes it so hard to play? They've given players every hot key, they allow players to customize every single hotkey to make it more comfortable for keystroking, they allow players to put as many units and/or structures on a single hotkey. Players can even tab between the units or structures on a single hotkey. Players have access to guides/builds/streams/replays from top players. Players have access to plenty of knowledge. Where is this idea coming from that the game needs to be made easier? There must be something in the current existence of the state of sc2 that suggests that idea to you.
You keep comparing the game the csgo or valorant, Lets stay on topic of RTS and more specifically sc2, What is it about sc2 that has given you the idea that RTS games need to be made easier?
If you cannot deal with more absract thoughts you won't be happy talking to me in particular here, i think trying to pin point what exactly could be done to sc2 is a totally flawed and useless thought experiment. They won't make a different version of sc2 (and blizzard won't either), they'll make a new game from the ground up. I and others in this thread (plus the quotes of the devs) already gave some thoughts where a new game could do better, i personally used other games to showcase it more clearly. If you don't wanna engage that, that's fine, but don't pretend there is nothing to talk about just because one doesn't name very specific things (though it's not even that unspecific, could be a lot more abstract)
On July 07 2021 02:50 The_Red_Viper wrote: If you cannot deal with more absract thoughts you won't be happy talking to me in particular here, i think trying to pin point what exactly could be done to sc2 is a totally flawed and useless thought experiment. They won't make a different version of sc2, they'll make a new game from the ground up. I and others in this thread (plus the quotes of the devs) already gave some thoughts where a new game could do better, i personally used other games to showcase it more clearly.
I'm not asking what is wrong with sc2, but based off what you say something about sc2 has clearly given you the idea that "the game needs to be made easier" for new players. What is it about the game that you think makes it too hard for new players that gives you the idea that it should be made easier. Be specific. What makes you think that? Putting this information out in the open can possibly help developers who are working on new rts games. You can't expect people to get an idea of what you are talking about if you aren't going to expand on it in detail, this is why we need specifics.
I already talked about that, go back and read my posts if you really want to know. I'll gladly try and elaborate if something isn't clear, but to me it seems like you just ignore things and ask things which were already stated, and not just from me.
On July 07 2021 02:56 The_Red_Viper wrote: I already talked about that, go back and read my posts.
I have read your posts multiple times and everything you've said is rather vague hence why i'm asking for specifics. Help others understand what you are thinking, your thought process and how you arrived to your conclusion that the game needs to be made easier for new players.
This is silly and i'll ignore you from now on if you just keep posting the exact same thing, as i said, if you cannot work with somewhat abstract thoughts (which are not even really abstract), i cannot help you, i won't try and specify which very specific aspect of sc2 is too challenging for new players, because ultimately that's irrelevant, what's relevant is how these things interact and what the result of them is, which is what i tried to address (and also what the devs seem to want to address) I am not a game dev, and even for game devs these problems are difficult to find solutions for, evidently, otherwise there would be more hope in 'bigger' pvp rts games.
On July 07 2021 02:50 The_Red_Viper wrote: If you cannot deal with more absract thoughts you won't be happy talking to me in particular here, i think trying to pin point what exactly could be done to sc2 is a totally flawed and useless thought experiment. They won't make a different version of sc2, they'll make a new game from the ground up. I and others in this thread (plus the quotes of the devs) already gave some thoughts where a new game could do better, i personally used other games to showcase it more clearly.
I'm not asking what is wrong with sc2, but based off what you say something about sc2 has clearly given you the idea that "the game needs to be made easier" for new players. What is it about the game that you think makes it too hard for new players that gives you the idea that it should be made easier. Be specific. What makes you think that? Putting this information out in the open can possibly help developers who are working on new rts games. You can't expect people to get an idea of what you are talking about if you aren't going to expand on it in detail, this is why we need specifics.
It’s extremely fast, in a sense that you can be macroing up for minutes with no action, miss a mine drop or whatever and you’re basically dead. So you go from minutes of basically nothing to losing, very quickly in a way that doesn’t happen in all other games.
Neither easier = fun or harder = fun are particularly useful things to consider, IMO anyway. Are certain interactions engaging, varied and keep one coming back for more?
I agree with what Red Viper’s saying in abstract ways.
We all want a particular type of game, there’s a tendency to generalise one’s opinion and make out it’s a wider held one without much evidence.
Personally I like the macro and mechanical element of games like SC2. If they’re simplified I reserve judgement to see what’s stuck in their place.
Ok so all the information i've gathered here is basically "the next rts game should be made easier just because". Not you or any rts devs have been specific on why they think it needs to be made easier. All I've read is "we want this game to appeal to a broad audience". If their goal is to basically make a reskin of the AOE games with different units, go for it. But that isn't going to appeal to a broad audience or become popular.
I suppose I will have to take the lead and share some of MY thoughts in specific since you won't.
One thing i've seen several players mention in the past is remove macro mechanics as a way to make things easier. One thing they need to understand is that the macro mechanics are there to provide variety, solutions and identity to each race. So i'd like to talk about that.
For example:
Zerg: The Queen -You can choose to boost your macro for a given situation in the game -You can choose to boost your map presence through spreading creep to prepare for later engagements -You can choose to hold energy for heals for later engagements
Terran: The orbital command -You can choose to boost your economy to focus more on producing units -You can choose to use the energy to gain intel on what the opponent is doing in the form of scans and at times use the scan to gain intel for making a strategic decision on the map or for engaging -You can choose to save energy for scans in case of invisible units -If worse comes to worse, you can use the energy for a supply drop to get you out of a supply block during a key moment of the game where you absolutely need to be producing units
Protoss: Nexus energy -Chronoboost, you can use this to plan build timings, early rushes or even focus on economy. It can also get you out of a bind if you need a specific earlier than you thought so you chronoboost it out -Recall, A failsafe for defense or an emergency escape for your army when engaging at inopportune times -Battery overcharge- A defensive "no" button for stopping timings or aggression
Now if we were to remove these mechanics entirely, every race would lose their identity, every race would lose options to adapt to certain situations and it would provide fewer avenues for different strategies across the board. Yes this would make the game simpler or easier to play since you would be required to do less, HOWEVER, This also removes several layers of strategic depth from the game resulting in a simple more boring game to play. That game specifically turns into a microbattles map, A version of RTS that removes most layers of strategy entirely that players already have access to, it already exists if that is what some players want. It's no longer an rts and just a fighting game with units. It would basically be taking a step backwards in all aspects. I bet if blizzard were to remove these mechanics like some have suggested, players would be asking to have these put back in within no time at all because they generally improve gameplay rather than hinder someone's ability to enjoy the game.
On July 07 2021 03:26 ReachTheSky wrote: Ok so all the information i've gathered here is basically "the next rts game should be made easier just because". Not you or any rts devs have been specific on why they think it needs to be made easier. All I've read is "we want this game to appeal to a broad audience". If their goal is to basically make a reskin of the AOE games with different units, go for it. But that isn't going to appeal to a broad audience or become popular.
I suppose I will have to take the lead and share some of MY thoughts in specific since you won't.
One thing i've seen several players mention in the past is remove macro mechanics as a way to make things easier. One thing they need to understand is that the macro mechanics are there to provide variety, solutions and identity to each race. So i'd like to talk about that.
For example:
Zerg: The Queen -You can choose to boost your macro for a given situation in the game -You can choose to boost your map presence through spreading creep to prepare for later engagements -You can choose to hold energy for heals for later engagements
Terran: The orbital command -You can choose to boost your economy to focus more on producing units -You can choose to use the energy to gain intel on what the opponent is doing in the form of scans and at times use the scan to gain intel for making a strategic decision on the map or for engaging -You can choose to save energy for scans in case of invisible units -If worse comes to worse, you can use the energy for a supply drop to get you out of a supply block during a key moment of the game where you absolutely need to be producing units
Protoss: Nexus energy -Chronoboost, you can use this to plan build timings, early rushes or even focus on economy. It can also get you out of a bind if you need a specific earlier than you thought so you chronoboost it out -Recall, A failsafe for defense or an emergency escape for your army when engaging at inopportune times -Battery overcharge- A defensive "no" button for stopping timings or aggression
Now if we were to remove these mechanics entirely, every race would lose their identity, every race would lose options to adapt to certain situations and it would provide fewer avenues for different strategies across the board. Yes this would make the game simpler or easier to play since you would be required to do less, HOWEVER, This also removes several layers of strategic depth from the game resulting in a simple more boring game to play. That game specifically turns into a microbattles map, A version of RTS that removes most layers of strategy entirely that players already have access to, it already exists if that is what some players want. It's no longer an rts and just a fighting game with units. It would basically be taking a step backwards in all aspects. I bet if blizzard were to remove these mechanics like some have suggested, players would be asking to have these put back in within no time at all because they generally improve gameplay rather than hinder someone's ability to enjoy the game.
I guess I understand what the "problem" is.
There is a discrepancy about the meaning / context to the term "macro mechanics".
If you look at the what you have written in your post, you will find a keyword "choice".
This is not what other people disagree about at all, a game without choice is never going to be a strategy game. What people talking about simplify the macro mechanics is to take away the repetitive action that stop causal player from "playing the game". One theoretical example can be: if the requirement of playing football (soccer if you are american) is that you have to be able to run 100 meter within 11 second, then player will have to training very hard on running before they can even touch the ball. This will just put people off trying to play football. This is the idea behind why developer want to find ways to make it "easier" for the causal players.
It is really down to the execution of individual game / developer to find a way to "lower the skill floor" and "keep the skill ceiling". Not everything that "lower the skill floor" have to be detrimental to "skill ceiling". Just an example, addition of whole army selection hotkey did "lower the skill floor", but it really did not do much in terms of "lower the skill ceiling" in SC2.
On a separate note, the problem of giving example is that there is always (huge) possibility of focusing the discussion on the specific example rather than the idea (the idea is what should be discussed), then the discussion is more likely than not go off the rail and become irrelevant to the idea needed to be discussed.
On July 07 2021 02:50 The_Red_Viper wrote: If you cannot deal with more absract thoughts you won't be happy talking to me in particular here, i think trying to pin point what exactly could be done to sc2 is a totally flawed and useless thought experiment. They won't make a different version of sc2, they'll make a new game from the ground up. I and others in this thread (plus the quotes of the devs) already gave some thoughts where a new game could do better, i personally used other games to showcase it more clearly.
I'm not asking what is wrong with sc2, but based off what you say something about sc2 has clearly given you the idea that "the game needs to be made easier" for new players. What is it about the game that you think makes it too hard for new players that gives you the idea that it should be made easier. Be specific. What makes you think that? Putting this information out in the open can possibly help developers who are working on new rts games. You can't expect people to get an idea of what you are talking about if you aren't going to expand on it in detail, this is why we need specifics.
It’s extremely fast, in a sense that you can be macroing up for minutes with no action, miss a mine drop or whatever and you’re basically dead. So you go from minutes of basically nothing to losing, very quickly in a way that doesn’t happen in all other games.
Neither easier = fun or harder = fun are particularly useful things to consider, IMO anyway. Are certain interactions engaging, varied and keep one coming back for more?
I agree with what Red Viper’s saying in abstract ways.
We all want a particular type of game, there’s a tendency to generalise one’s opinion and make out it’s a wider held one without much evidence.
Personally I like the macro and mechanical element of games like SC2. If they’re simplified I reserve judgement to see what’s stuck in their place.
Sticking with my Valorant comparison i would say that game is far more brutally punishing to noobs. Each round a player can be wiped out almost instantly and have to sit the whole round out due to a well placed head shot. I have seen new players who go 0 kills and 20 deaths spend a whole game hardly playing the game. Compare that to sc2 We’re as outside of dts when you have zero detection it’s rare for a harassment unit to do so much damage that the game is instantly over, it might put you very behind but it does not outright end the game.
Allins and cheese on the other hand can be brutally hard on new players. I do think one way to create a better new player experience is to make very early aggression weaker, or at least more about getting an Econ advantage then outright ending the game. When I tried Aoe2 one thing that struck me is how much less early game cheese there is, outside of tower rushes there are very few early attacks that are as strong as the huge variety of one base allins in sc2. This reduces barrier to entry because new players usually get to execute their early game build without being run over by their opponent.
On July 07 2021 03:26 ReachTheSky wrote: Ok so all the information i've gathered here is basically "the next rts game should be made easier just because". Not you or any rts devs have been specific on why they think it needs to be made easier. All I've read is "we want this game to appeal to a broad audience". If their goal is to basically make a reskin of the AOE games with different units, go for it. But that isn't going to appeal to a broad audience or become popular.
I suppose I will have to take the lead and share some of MY thoughts in specific since you won't.
One thing I've seen several players mention in the past is remove macro mechanics as a way to make things easier. One thing they need to understand is that the macro mechanics are there to provide variety, solutions and identity to each race. So i'd like to talk about that.
For example:
Zerg: The Queen -You can choose to boost your macro for a given situation in the game -You can choose to boost your map presence through spreading creep to prepare for later engagements -You can choose to hold energy for heals for later engagements
Terran: The orbital command -You can choose to boost your economy to focus more on producing units -You can choose to use the energy to gain intel on what the opponent is doing in the form of scans and at times use the scan to gain intel for making a strategic decision on the map or for engaging -You can choose to save energy for scans in case of invisible units -If worse comes to worse, you can use the energy for a supply drop to get you out of a supply block during a key moment of the game where you absolutely need to be producing units
Protoss: Nexus energy -Chronoboost, you can use this to plan build timings, early rushes or even focus on economy. It can also get you out of a bind if you need a specific earlier than you thought so you chronoboost it out -Recall, A failsafe for defense or an emergency escape for your army when engaging at inopportune times -Battery overcharge- A defensive "no" button for stopping timings or aggression
Now if we were to remove these mechanics entirely, every race would lose their identity, every race would lose options to adapt to certain situations and it would provide fewer avenues for different strategies across the board. Yes this would make the game simpler or easier to play since you would be required to do less, HOWEVER, This also removes several layers of strategic depth from the game resulting in a simple more boring game to play. That game specifically turns into a microbattles map, A version of RTS that removes most layers of strategy entirely that players already have access to, it already exists if that is what some players want. It's no longer an rts and just a fighting game with units. It would basically be taking a step backwards in all aspects. I bet if blizzard were to remove these mechanics like some have suggested, players would be asking to have these put back in within no time at all because they generally improve gameplay rather than hinder someone's ability to enjoy the game.
I think you can have very distinct faction identity within macro mechanics without having them being as demanding as sc2. One of my favorite rts’s of all time was red alert 3. It was not nearly as hard to play decently as sc2. A big reason for this is that their is no worker production. Every resource node requires a mining building and one harvester. Yet every factions mining was very different and made the factions still feel very distinct. Mainly due to the asymmetrical tech trees and building mechanics of each faction.
Soviet’s had the best ability to acquire new mining locations since they had cranes that could double as a base constructor, and their tech was tied to buildings unlocking tiers and allied globally this made them play like Zerg where they would try to devour the map.
Empire had a building mechanic where they made individual units that deployed into buildings this meant they could immediately grab far away bases, but these units were more expensive this meant they usually had to grow more slowly than Soviet’s but still could get a pretty decent economy latter on, kind of like Protoss. Their tech was unlocked on a per building bases via an upgrade, a little bit like tech labs if they had tiers. This meant that you could get to the highest tier units really fast but you rarely could make a lot of them.
Allies could build like Soviet’s to some extent but they had to unlock tech tiers from a central building either a deployed builder or their construction vehicle(town hall building) since the deployed builders were easily sniped this usually meant they would lock down a small corner of the map fast but have to invest a lot into deployed builders to get any more eco. This generally made them play like Terran where you control a smaller portion of the map but have more efficient early and mid game units that you get to quickly and then try to trade out efficiently.
All this variety was created with systems that are a lot simpler mechanically for new players than macro in sc2.
Macro in c&c style games is also just easier in general than sc2. In sc2 queuing up units is either not possible (zerg/toss warpins) or very bad since you spend money upfront on units and then they get quests before your actually making them. In c&c games instead what you do is you que up everything, buildings, units, etc. then as you have money that money goes into building the unit until it is payed for and produced. This make good macro more about balancing the needs of your base army and tech to spend your money without overspending so you cant produce smoothly. It’s hard but it’s less mechanical than sc2 where you have to have high apm to macro well in the mid and late game. This reduced burden makes it easier for players but it did not feel bad and ra3 still felt very skillful both in terms of macro and micro. Since macro was easier the game became more about fights and micro which at a high level were almost constant.
Was it better than sc2s system not necessarily macro in sc2 is a core part of the game. Part of the strategy of the game is how you distribute your apm and its what makes both bw and sc2 such good esports is that the game is so hard to play. you will even see pros sometimes supply block if they get stretched to thin.
Simpler macro is not necessarily better either after ra3 ea made c&c 4 which really striped down the macro mechanics of the game and made it play more like a moba rts hybrid. This game had a huge hype build up going into it but completely failed and killed my favorite video game franchise. There's simplifying a mechanic so noobs can do it, than theres removing mechanics that are core to rts and loosing your whole player base. C&C went to far and flopped as a result.
However I don’t think it’s a good argument that a 3 faction. Rts must have hard macro mechanics to be interesting. Their are different viable systems that may not have been tried yet.
A simple example of simplifying macro mechanics was already mentioned in this thread. Have buildings auto-produce units if you want. Like, at the barracks, you can right-click the marine and then you'll have SC2's auto-cast indicator go on the marine and every time there is available minerals/supply a marine starts building. You can cancel the auto-build or switch it to a different unit whenever you want. Can do it with every production building and also things like inject or mule drops.
The point would be to automate repetitive tasks so that players can focus on the tactics and strategy of the game... moving/attacking units, building new buildings, teching, etc. Currently in SC2, the barrier to actually playing legit strategies is hitting your macro cycles consistently and that level is loosely masters+. Put another way, more than 95% of the active player base consistently loses games because they can't hit their macro cycles consistently, not because of strategic decisions or micro mistakes. It's no fun to lose like that. It's also stressing, not fun (for most people), to repetitively hit a macro cycle.
So that's one area where a new game could make more accessible without taking away strategic decisions. I don't know that I'd want it in SC2 because the game was not built around it, but it would be interesting in a future game that was designed with those mechanics in mind.
Separate from macro mechanics, yes, losing in an instant to one sneak attack sucks. What I would like to see in a future game is to get rid of Fog of War for all neutral areas of the map. Have Fog of War only covers bases, so you have to expand to cut your opponent's vision. When your opponent moves out of their base, you'd see the attack coming and would have some time to prepare. Controlling area with static buildings would be how you'd disguise your army movements late-game (or perhaps late-game units can create fog of war). I think this is a noob friendly idea that also has some advanced strategic consequences in a game built with this in mind.
1. Less smurfs Solution: Automatic que time increase for smurfs. Advanced hidden algorithms that detects artificially lowering your MMR. It may not be 100% but if you remove 95% of smurfs ladder would feel less unfair to lower and mid players.
2. Sudden death scenarios removed No more automatic loss against DT if you have no detection. The game should put you in a disadvantage if you make mistakes, but never in an auto-lose situation.
3. Perfect reaction speed should be an advantage, not a requirement. There should be nothing in the game like disruptors where if you do not see the novas and react immediately the game is over.
4. The difference between no micro and perfect micro should be lower. A-moving most units should still get you 75% of the units power. Pro level micro can unlock the remaining 25%. There should not be a situation where the difference between gold level marines and Maru level marines is 500+%. It makes balancing the game for normal players almost impossible.
5. The game should be more balanced around normal players and less balanced around pro players. Ideally the game should be balanced around both. But keeping things is the game that is broken for 99% of the player base but balanced for the top 0.1% is not ok. The playing experience of the larger position of the player base should take precedence.
6. Fun to play is more important than fun to view If you have a great game that is fun to play e-sport may or may not happen. But the game play experience should never be lowered because something looks cool on pro level but is actually not fun for normal players.
7. There should be no late game I-win armies. There should be no combination of units that once reached, makes it almost impossible for the other player to win. There should always be a clear counter and really powerful units should have a higher supply cap so that massing them is not possible.
8. Macro should be based more around smart decisions and less around mechanics The game should provide lots of interesting macro decisions but the difference between bad and good macro should be more based around making smart macro decisions, and less about repetitive key presses.
9. Terrain should matter more In SC2 terrain matters surprisingly little. Apart from ramps and choke points terrain has very little affect on the outcome of battles. In real life warfare terrain has a large impact on battles and different types of terrain benefit different types of units. I hope the next big RTS make terrain matter more so that tactical skill has more impact instead of just micro skills.
On July 07 2021 02:50 The_Red_Viper wrote: If you cannot deal with more absract thoughts you won't be happy talking to me in particular here, i think trying to pin point what exactly could be done to sc2 is a totally flawed and useless thought experiment. They won't make a different version of sc2, they'll make a new game from the ground up. I and others in this thread (plus the quotes of the devs) already gave some thoughts where a new game could do better, i personally used other games to showcase it more clearly.
I'm not asking what is wrong with sc2, but based off what you say something about sc2 has clearly given you the idea that "the game needs to be made easier" for new players. What is it about the game that you think makes it too hard for new players that gives you the idea that it should be made easier. Be specific. What makes you think that? Putting this information out in the open can possibly help developers who are working on new rts games. You can't expect people to get an idea of what you are talking about if you aren't going to expand on it in detail, this is why we need specifics.
It’s extremely fast, in a sense that you can be macroing up for minutes with no action, miss a mine drop or whatever and you’re basically dead. So you go from minutes of basically nothing to losing, very quickly in a way that doesn’t happen in all other games.
Neither easier = fun or harder = fun are particularly useful things to consider, IMO anyway. Are certain interactions engaging, varied and keep one coming back for more?
I agree with what Red Viper’s saying in abstract ways.
We all want a particular type of game, there’s a tendency to generalise one’s opinion and make out it’s a wider held one without much evidence.
Personally I like the macro and mechanical element of games like SC2. If they’re simplified I reserve judgement to see what’s stuck in their place.
Sticking with my Valorant comparison i would say that game is far more brutally punishing to noobs. Each round a player can be wiped out almost instantly and have to sit the whole round out due to a well placed head shot. I have seen new players who go 0 kills and 20 deaths spend a whole game hardly playing the game. Compare that to sc2 We’re as outside of dts when you have zero detection it’s rare for a harassment unit to do so much damage that the game is instantly over, it might put you very behind but it does not outright end the game.
Allins and cheese on the other hand can be brutally hard on new players. I do think one way to create a better new player experience is to make very early aggression weaker, or at least more about getting an Econ advantage then outright ending the game. When I tried Aoe2 one thing that struck me is how much less early game cheese their is, outside of tower rushes their are very few early attacks that are as strong as the huge variety of one base allins in sc2. This reduces barrier to entry because new players usually get to execute their early game build without being run over by their opponent.
Hm while i see what you are saying here, i think scenarios like this are totally down to matchmaking / not being at the level you should be. Unless one is in the absolute bottom bracket of the whole playerbase, this shouldn't regularly happen ever. Whereas in sc2 or bw (starcraft) it is incredibly easy to simply lose to any 'abusive' strategy rather easily, where you barely 'played the game', especially as a new player. One can understand it better when one realizes what usually gets brought up when it comes to 'getting better', people are told they are not supposed to look at their army units and micro them, they're supposed to macro. So in a way, people are told to not interact in fun ways to play the game how it is supposed to be played. That's a problem in my eyes.
Now there could be the argument that i put too much emphasis on player vs player interactions as the main fun factor, but in general i'd say it probably is the most important factor of any multiplayer game, how fun and dynamic these interactions are, how often they happen, etc. Mastering to put down the production building at the exact time you need it, hit every production cycle, never get supply blocked, all of that imo shouldn't be the core, it should merely facilitate players to outplay their opponents on the field. Right now all of this is where most of the effort / gameplay goes into for a huge portion of the experience of new / low lvl players. And people wonder why rts games aren't as popular as mobas or shooters, where this isn't the case and the gameplay revolves a lot more around constant pvp.
1. Less smurfs Solution: Automatic que time increase for smurfs. Advanced hidden algorithms that detects artificially lowering your MMR. It may not be 100% but if you remove 95% of smurfs ladder would feel less unfair to lower and mid players.
i realize the meanings of words change, time marches on, etc, but it'd be nice if the gaming community could differentiate between newb bashing and smurfing. since it first happened in war2, there has been confusion about it. it was a top player who did it because he couldnt get games on his main ID which everyone feared. so when he made a new account and started getting games, he automatically was playing people he was better against, because as a top player he was better than everyone. he wanted to be anonymous so he could get games
smurfing for a long time was just the alt account of a famous player used to play games anonymously. since most famous players are top players, and sometimes the reason to make an alt account is the difficulty of finding games at the highest level, smurfing often results in mismatches (at least until its mmr / rank is maxed out)
it has nothing directly to do with newb bashing. the people who purposely lose games to keep their matchmaking rating low are not smurfing. the people who continuously make new accounts to play at lower matchmaking ratings are not smurfing. idk what people want to call that, but it should be something different than smurfing
you can look at BW threads where people try to identify smurfs and never find any hint that it has anything to do with newb bashing. and then somehow in SC2 it became about newb bashing. and now today there's still confusion over it as some people use the original meaning and some people are in the process of changing the meaning
imo smurfing absolutely should be allowed. it is clear from the history of progaming across genres that famous / top players get a lot of value out of smurfing. when a game is popular enough, the occasional top player ranking up a new smurf account is a tiny drop in the bucket of games going on.
sc2 has a problem with too many normal players not enjoying winning only 50% of their games so they constantly play at lower mmr values to win much higher than 50%. so the solutions to the excessive mismatches on the ladder are: (1) make a game where competitive players are still having fun while winning only 50%, (2) make a casual gameplay queue that competitive players can use as an outlet when they arent up for playing competitive games, (3) be very active and responsive in tweaking parameters for top players searching for matches so that their queues never get so long that they're motivated to maintain a lower mmr account
1. Less smurfs Solution: Automatic que time increase for smurfs. Advanced hidden algorithms that detects artificially lowering your MMR. It may not be 100% but if you remove 95% of smurfs ladder would feel less unfair to lower and mid players.
i realize the meanings of words change, time marches on, etc, but it'd be nice if the gaming community could differentiate between newb bashing and smurfing. since it first happened in war2, there has been confusion about it. it was a top player who did it because he couldnt get games on his main ID which everyone feared. so when he made a new account and started getting games, he automatically was playing people he was better against, because as a top player he was better than everyone. he wanted to be anonymous so he could get games
smurfing for a long time was just the alt account of a famous player used to play games anonymously. since most famous players are top players, and sometimes the reason to make an alt account is the difficulty of finding games at the highest level, smurfing often results in mismatches (at least until its mmr / rank is maxed out)
it has nothing directly to do with newb bashing. the people who purposely lose games to keep their matchmaking rating low are not smurfing. the people who continuously make new accounts to play at lower matchmaking ratings are not smurfing. idk what people want to call that, but it should be something different than smurfing
you can look at BW threads where people try to identify smurfs and never find any hint that it has anything to do with newb bashing. and then somehow in SC2 it became about newb bashing. and now today there's still confusion over it as some people use the original meaning and some people are in the process of changing the meaning
imo smurfing absolutely should be allowed. it is clear from the history of progaming across genres that famous / top players get a lot of value out of smurfing. when a game is popular enough, the occasional top player ranking up a new smurf account is a tiny drop in the bucket of games going on.
sc2 has a problem with too many normal players not enjoying winning only 50% of their games so they constantly play at lower mmr values to win much higher than 50%. so the solutions to the excessive mismatches on the ladder are: (1) make a game where competitive players are still having fun while winning only 50%, (2) make a casual gameplay queue that competitive players can use as an outlet when they arent up for playing competitive games, (3) be very active and responsive in tweaking parameters for top players searching for matches so that their queues never get so long that they're motivated to maintain a lower mmr account
I know all that - I used to play WC2 on kali. But smurfing does not have the original meaning any more. Now it is more or less synonymous with mmr tanking and playing lesser skilled players.
But solving the issue is not complicated. First increase queue time when mmr tanking, then gradually auto increase the mmr search range so that no one has to wait more then 3-4 minutes for a 1v1.
You are right about the game should be more enjoyable when losing. I am not sure why SC2 often is infuriating when you lose. I can not remember being pissed off when I lost in WC2 or AOE1-3. Well maybe a bit, but not on this level.
Maybe because in SC2 often feels unfair. Because a single mistake often is enough to lose the game, and everything you have done up to that point becomes irrelevant.
On July 07 2021 21:15 MockHamill wrote: Things I hope the next big RTS game solves
1. Less smurfs Solution: Automatic que time increase for smurfs. Advanced hidden algorithms that detects artificially lowering your MMR. It may not be 100% but if you remove 95% of smurfs ladder would feel less unfair to lower and mid players.
2. Sudden death scenarios removed No more automatic loss against DT if you have no detection. The game should put you in a disadvantage if you make mistakes, but never in an auto-lose situation.
3. Perfect reaction speed should be an advantage, not a requirement. There should be nothing in the game like disruptors where if you do not see the novas and react immediately the game is over.
4. The difference between no micro and perfect micro should be lower. A-moving most units should still get you 75% of the units power. Pro level micro can unlock the remaining 25%. There should not be a situation where the difference between gold level marines and Maru level marines is 500+%. It makes balancing the game for normal players almost impossible.
5. The game should be more balanced around normal players and less balanced around pro players. Ideally the game should be balanced around both. But keeping things is the game that is broken for 99% of the player base but balanced for the top 0.1% is not ok. The playing experience of the larger position of the player base should take precedence.
6. Fun to play is more important than fun to view If you have a great game that is fun to play e-sport may or may not happen. But the game play experience should never be lowered because something looks cool on pro level but is actually not fun for normal players.
7. There should be no late game I-win armies. There should be no combination of units that once reached, makes it almost impossible for the other player to win. There should always be a clear counter and really powerful units should have a higher supply cap so that massing them is not possible.
8. Macro should be based more around smart decisions and less around mechanics The game should provide lots of interesting macro decisions but the difference between bad and good macro should be more based around making smart macro decisions, and less about repetitive key presses.
9. Terrain should matter more In SC2 terrain matters surprisingly little. Apart from ramps and choke points terrain has very little affect on the outcome of battles. In real life warfare terrain has a large impact on battles and different types of terrain benefit different types of units. I hope the next big RTS make terrain matter more so that tactical skill has more impact instead of just micro skills.
1. The people who get upset about "smurfs" are the same people who make up excuses for losing and fail to hold themselves accountable. It doesn't matter how good your opponent is, you lost. You played worse. Now it's up to you to correct that. I firmly believe smurfs don't matter at all and that If you got beat, you got beat and it is your fault entirely. When I see people blaming smurfs when they lose, I automatically know that person isn't a go-getter because they are just making excuses.
2. There is coming back from cloaked units, it's never an auto loss. Most people just give up right away because they don't possess the will to play the game out.
3. Perfect reaction speed IS an advantage, it only becomes a requirement when you are playing someone as equally as fast as yourself, or faster. Removing the requirement to react fast to any scenario would essentially make whatever game you think you are designing a NON-RTS game.
4. Executing micro well is highly satisfactory for the player. Making things less rewarding for the effort put in makes ANY game less interesting to play from a players perspective and definitely more boring to watch from a spectator perspective.
5. I think pros and noobs should be taken into consideration BUT, This is a skill based game. The player who makes the better decisions and plays faster, more precise/accurate should always be rewarded. To balance a unit, around noobs, simply because noobs get dominated by said unit is the equivalent of removing the idea that players should learn to improve. "don't worry hunny, we know you lost and you suck, but were going to make this game easier for you just you can feel a little less bad about yourself".
6. 100% agree that gameplay should not be shaped around what looks fun on a broadcast, but rather should be shaped around what is fun to execute as player working the strat/build etc.
7. I don't think this exists currently. If it did, then why don't we see it in pro play?
8. It's a real time strategy game that requires the use of a mouse and keyboard. This is just the nature of the beast. Either put the energy into being fast or don't.
9. This comes down to map makers and general unit compositions. Terrain could matter a whole lot more for terrans in sc2, but then that map would be considered a terran map or get vetoed more often. Also, Some units just don't really take advantage of terrain.
What i'm about to say is going to come off snooty or elitist, and I want you to know that is not my intention behind what i'm about to say but most of these suggestions scream "i don't like the feeling of losing, please make the game easier to play for me so I don't feel bad as often". But here is the catch 22, a silly matchmaking system is still going to try to make it so you only win half your games, so you are still going to experience those negative feelings anyway. Perhaps instead of expecting games to change in a way that would actually make them worse, change your attitude instead and focus on becoming faster instead.
In general, A lot of the suggestions I see are based around lowering the impact of decisions or unit control. Making these changes does one thing and turn the game into slow paced fighting with a blob of units on each side that don't do anything interesting. Instead of expecting the game to get easier for you, perhaps you should focus on increasing your willpower instead, don't be lazy. Be willing to play fast and do it. Be willing to learn from your mistakes instead of blaiming a "smurf" when in reality it is just someone who is flat out better than you.
What makes RTS so fun to play is the impact a player can have directly over the game through decision making and unit control. When you dumb those down, or lessen the impact that they have on the game, You have a more boring game. Immortal:Gates of Pyre, a game being designed with many of your preferences in mind, Does not look fun to play. I watched the livestream event, The whole game just looked like players were slow moving blobs around that auto attacked. I didn't see a single clutch play or moment at all, it didn't look fun. This is the result of dumbing down rts requirements and it is completely bland.
There are a myriad of reasons why sc2 is in the shape it is in when it comes to popularity and size of the playerbase, but none of those reasons are "the game was too hard". Broodwar is harder and more mechanically demanding, yet is currently more popular when it comes to the rts playerbase AND viewership, even though it's on a severely dated graphics engine, that should speak volumes to any developers out there. You know when RTS games were most popular? When they didn't use algorithms for ladder systems. The original in-game broodwar ladder system, the original pgtour ladder system and the original wgtour ladder system are examples of successful ladder systems that did not use algorithms at all.
1. Less smurfs Solution: Automatic que time increase for smurfs. Advanced hidden algorithms that detects artificially lowering your MMR. It may not be 100% but if you remove 95% of smurfs ladder would feel less unfair to lower and mid players.
i realize the meanings of words change, time marches on, etc, but it'd be nice if the gaming community could differentiate between newb bashing and smurfing. since it first happened in war2, there has been confusion about it. it was a top player who did it because he couldnt get games on his main ID which everyone feared. so when he made a new account and started getting games, he automatically was playing people he was better against, because as a top player he was better than everyone. he wanted to be anonymous so he could get games
smurfing for a long time was just the alt account of a famous player used to play games anonymously. since most famous players are top players, and sometimes the reason to make an alt account is the difficulty of finding games at the highest level, smurfing often results in mismatches (at least until its mmr / rank is maxed out)
it has nothing directly to do with newb bashing. the people who purposely lose games to keep their matchmaking rating low are not smurfing. the people who continuously make new accounts to play at lower matchmaking ratings are not smurfing. idk what people want to call that, but it should be something different than smurfing
you can look at BW threads where people try to identify smurfs and never find any hint that it has anything to do with newb bashing. and then somehow in SC2 it became about newb bashing. and now today there's still confusion over it as some people use the original meaning and some people are in the process of changing the meaning
imo smurfing absolutely should be allowed. it is clear from the history of progaming across genres that famous / top players get a lot of value out of smurfing. when a game is popular enough, the occasional top player ranking up a new smurf account is a tiny drop in the bucket of games going on.
sc2 has a problem with too many normal players not enjoying winning only 50% of their games so they constantly play at lower mmr values to win much higher than 50%. so the solutions to the excessive mismatches on the ladder are: (1) make a game where competitive players are still having fun while winning only 50%, (2) make a casual gameplay queue that competitive players can use as an outlet when they arent up for playing competitive games, (3) be very active and responsive in tweaking parameters for top players searching for matches so that their queues never get so long that they're motivated to maintain a lower mmr account
I know all that - I used to play WC2 on kali. But smurfing does not have the original meaning any more. Now it is more or less synonymous with mmr tanking and playing lesser skilled players.
But solving the issue is not complicated. First increase queue time when mmr tanking, then gradually auto increase the mmr search range so that no one has to wait more then 3-4 minutes for a 1v1.
You are right about the game should be more enjoyable when losing. I am not sure why SC2 often is infuriating when you lose. I can not remember being pissed off when I lost in WC2 or AOE1-3. Well maybe a bit, but not on this level.
Maybe because in SC2 often feels unfair. Because a single mistake often is enough to lose the game, and everything you have done up to that point becomes irrelevant.
people still use the word both ways and it's confusing. there are two behaviors here and only one word. it doesnt make sense to use an existing word in a different way if the original way is still in use. your reason for doing this even though you know better is that other people are doing it? ...
But solving the issue is not complicated. First increase queue time when mmr tanking, then gradually auto increase the mmr search range so that no one has to wait more then 3-4 minutes for a 1v1.
punishing an innocent person on a losing streak doesnt seem like a good idea. and no one ever has to tank their mmr all at once. they can get to the mmr they want to play at and then follow every win with an instant forfeit loss. adding a lockout period for queuing when leaving a game early would make this process more annoying.
you cant solve this issue by looking at how people behave in sc2 and making a change to prevent or discourage them from behaving that way. there might be a simple workaround to your obstacle that allows them to achieve the same result with slightly different behavior. so if devs really want to minimize this behavior as much as possible, it'll probably be an ongoing battle. saying that solving it is simple is really optimistic
i dont see how it can be fully prevented. if a player anticipates when his opponent is about to leave and just leaves first, and he's able to do this successfully 50%+ of his games, then he can keep his MMR steady over time by trying to do this every game and then letting a few wins go through if his MMR gets too low. it's possible for a system to flag an account for losing too many games while having a higher army value or something like that. but in that case, a human has to review the case and ban them, which if it's a free to play multiplayer (very likely) then they're probably fine with playing a fresh account. introducing low-paid or volunteer humans to review cases introduces all sorts of other flaws (and would be better spent on banning hateful people). and if people figure out how the automatic flagging system works, they'll work around it
so i think part of the solution is to look into what motivates people to do this and try to nudge them away from it. this behavior will probably always exist to some extent but it doesn't need to be an epidemic. if it's rare enough, it's fine. sure, do a few things with the system to make it more difficult / time consuming, but also just get people to stop wanting to do it, and it should be rare enough.
Is smurfing the "newb bashing" variety not the alt account kind really that common in sc2? TBH ive been at least diamond since the game was released and masters for many years so i just dont know. In my eyes I just cant understand smurfing in a game like sc2. In games like cs-go, league or dota I can kind of understand the appeal as a way to show off to your team. But in my eyes smurfing in sc2 would just be boring. Its a 1v1 game where if your significantly better than your opponent you can win in under 3 minutes. where is the appeal for smurfs? Are there allot of smurfs at low ranks? I know there are many alt accounts in gm, masters and a few in diamond but I don't really know much outside of that.
1. Less smurfs Solution: Automatic que time increase for smurfs. Advanced hidden algorithms that detects artificially lowering your MMR. It may not be 100% but if you remove 95% of smurfs ladder would feel less unfair to lower and mid players.
i realize the meanings of words change, time marches on, etc, but it'd be nice if the gaming community could differentiate between newb bashing and smurfing. since it first happened in war2, there has been confusion about it. it was a top player who did it because he couldnt get games on his main ID which everyone feared. so when he made a new account and started getting games, he automatically was playing people he was better against, because as a top player he was better than everyone. he wanted to be anonymous so he could get games
smurfing for a long time was just the alt account of a famous player used to play games anonymously. since most famous players are top players, and sometimes the reason to make an alt account is the difficulty of finding games at the highest level, smurfing often results in mismatches (at least until its mmr / rank is maxed out)
it has nothing directly to do with newb bashing. the people who purposely lose games to keep their matchmaking rating low are not smurfing. the people who continuously make new accounts to play at lower matchmaking ratings are not smurfing. idk what people want to call that, but it should be something different than smurfing
you can look at BW threads where people try to identify smurfs and never find any hint that it has anything to do with newb bashing. and then somehow in SC2 it became about newb bashing. and now today there's still confusion over it as some people use the original meaning and some people are in the process of changing the meaning
imo smurfing absolutely should be allowed. it is clear from the history of progaming across genres that famous / top players get a lot of value out of smurfing. when a game is popular enough, the occasional top player ranking up a new smurf account is a tiny drop in the bucket of games going on.
sc2 has a problem with too many normal players not enjoying winning only 50% of their games so they constantly play at lower mmr values to win much higher than 50%. so the solutions to the excessive mismatches on the ladder are: (1) make a game where competitive players are still having fun while winning only 50%, (2) make a casual gameplay queue that competitive players can use as an outlet when they arent up for playing competitive games, (3) be very active and responsive in tweaking parameters for top players searching for matches so that their queues never get so long that they're motivated to maintain a lower mmr account
I know all that - I used to play WC2 on kali. But smurfing does not have the original meaning any more. Now it is more or less synonymous with mmr tanking and playing lesser skilled players.
But solving the issue is not complicated. First increase queue time when mmr tanking, then gradually auto increase the mmr search range so that no one has to wait more then 3-4 minutes for a 1v1.
You are right about the game should be more enjoyable when losing. I am not sure why SC2 often is infuriating when you lose. I can not remember being pissed off when I lost in WC2 or AOE1-3. Well maybe a bit, but not on this level.
Maybe because in SC2 often feels unfair. Because a single mistake often is enough to lose the game, and everything you have done up to that point becomes irrelevant.
people still use the word both ways and it's confusing. there are two behaviors here and only one word. it doesnt make sense to use an existing word in a different way if the original way is still in use. your reason for doing this even though you know better is that other people are doing it? ...
But solving the issue is not complicated. First increase queue time when mmr tanking, then gradually auto increase the mmr search range so that no one has to wait more then 3-4 minutes for a 1v1.
punishing an innocent person on a losing streak doesnt seem like a good idea. and no one ever has to tank their mmr all at once. they can get to the mmr they want to play at and then follow every win with an instant forfeit loss. adding a lockout period for queuing when leaving a game early would make this process more annoying.
you cant solve this issue by looking at how people behave in sc2 and making a change to prevent or discourage them from behaving that way. there might be a simple workaround to your obstacle that allows them to achieve the same result with slightly different behavior. so if devs really want to minimize this behavior as much as possible, it'll probably be an ongoing battle. saying that solving it is simple is really optimistic
i dont see how it can be fully prevented. if a player anticipates when his opponent is about to leave and just leaves first, and he's able to do this successfully 50%+ of his games, then he can keep his MMR steady over time by trying to do this every game and then letting a few wins go through if his MMR gets too low. it's possible for a system to flag an account for losing too many games while having a higher army value or something like that. but in that case, a human has to review the case and ban them, which if it's a free to play multiplayer (very likely) then they're probably fine with playing a fresh account. introducing low-paid or volunteer humans to review cases introduces all sorts of other flaws (and would be better spent on banning hateful people). and if people figure out how the automatic flagging system works, they'll work around it
so i think part of the solution is to look into what motivates people to do this and try to nudge them away from it. this behavior will probably always exist to some extent but it doesn't need to be an epidemic. if it's rare enough, it's fine. sure, do a few things with the system to make it more difficult / time consuming, but also just get people to stop wanting to do it, and it should be rare enough.
The ladder systems of old(wgt, pgt, original blizzard ladder system from sc/bw) never had these issues. You know an algorithm system doesn't work when blizzard literally sends employees in-game to whatever chat channel a user is in to tell a player they are supposed to care about their mmr. LOL. I don't know what was worse, that or when a blizzard employee strongly suggested to me in chat that they'd let me back into gm if I played only macro instead of testing out aggressive all ins or off-beat builds. blizzard should scrap the usage of severely flawed algorithms and just go back to the old systems from years ago, those actually worked. An algorithm system is supposed to serve people, expecting people to behave/play a certain way just so the system can "work" is expecting the player to serve the algorithmic system - it's entirely unreasonable as I play games for fun and not to serve some stupid algorithm as if it's my responsibility to make sure blizzard's crap is working properly - That's above my paygrade LOL!
On a side note, blizzard is is now hiding the active number of players who are currently playing at any given time by no longer showing how many players are online in chat channels and how many are in game when you log onto a server. Why don't they want the playerbase knowing how many players are playing the game at any given time?
On another sidenote, mineral patch boosting hack is apparently a thing now, Played a guy on ladder and watched the replay afterwards, Was able to see each drone constantly assigned back to the same mineral patch because of it showing the clicks on the minerals. It showed these clicks on each minerals throughout the entire game at all times which would be impossible to do manually throughout a 12 minute game for all your bases simultaneously. Hacks are much more common in this game than people think.
Smurfs are currently being defined as accounts with purposely tanked MMR to play against lower ranked players. Alternate accounts at nearly the same rank as the main are typically just called Alts now. There may be some holdouts on the old definition, but there seems to be pretty widespread agreement on the definition of smurfs at this point.
One issue with most competitive games is that people want to win more than 50% of the time, but the ladder is designed to get everyone (except the very top and very bottom) to 50% win rate. That's why we see smurfs... people want to win more than they want to compete.
It could explain some of the appeal of a game like Fortnite, where being better at the game meant winning more. In SC2 or LoL, being better at the game means you get a higher numerical rank, but you don't win more after your MMR adjusts to your new skill level. It's not really a flaw in the actual game itself, but a flaw in people not being able to accept 50% win rate.
On July 08 2021 09:41 RenSC2 wrote: Smurfs are currently being defined as accounts with purposely tanked MMR to play against lower ranked players. Alternate accounts at nearly the same rank as the main are typically just called Alts now. There may be some holdouts on the old definition, but there seems to be pretty widespread agreement on the definition of smurfs at this point.
One issue with most competitive games is that people want to win more than 50% of the time, but the ladder is designed to get everyone (except the very top and very bottom) to 50% win rate. That's why we see smurfs... people want to win more than they want to compete.
It could explain some of the appeal of a game like Fortnite, where being better at the game meant winning more. In SC2 or LoL, being better at the game means you get a higher numerical rank, but you don't win more after your MMR adjusts to your new skill level. It's not really a flaw in the actual game itself, but a flaw in people not being able to accept 50% win rate.
Some people tank mmr for different reasons.
For example, The other day I tanked my mmr by over 1k points on purpose to test a very specific strategy. I had to tank all the way down to low diamond. Why at the diamond level? Because pool into hatch into aggression is much more common at the diamond level than it is masters or gm and if i wanted to gather as much information in the fastest possible way so that I could come to a conclusion on my testing as fast as possible, tanking to diamond level was my best option for gathering data. I immediately left every tvt and tvp during the testing period simply because i was testing a specific response vs the above mentioned zerg opening. If blizzard actually gave players the option to veto certain races on ladder like they do maps, i wouldn't have had to auto leave games vs races that i didn't want to play vs at any given time. This is also an example of the system not serving me as I need it to(lack of race vetoing on ladder) so I had to take measures into my own hands. It's not my responsibility to care what effect(s) this has on someone else's mmr as that's above my paygrade, i just play the game, i'm not an employee tasked with the responsibility of making sure the system is working. Someone might ask then why play ranked? Because the quality of games are generally better in ranked than unranked and more often than not I play against real builds/responses/main races in ranked than in unranked. Ranked also seems like a better place to learn than unranked for these reasons.
Also, rank doesn't mean anything to me and I don't consider that a reflection of my own skill by any means. Why? because right now i'm in diamond but I can consistently go toe to toe with gms in 2 out of 3 matchups. If i didn't have the skill, i wouldn't be able to go toe to toe with other gms on NA/EU/KR. This is a clear example that shows that rank doesn't equal skill.
Blizzard employees should spend their time balancing/updating the game instead of focusing on behavior modification. Fix your crappy system instead of expecting players to serve it and fix your balance.
Imo smurfing by either definition isn't a problem in sc1&2. There is no 'abandon' mechanic like in LoL or dota2 that punishes you for leaving. You can simply leave as soon as you detect a smurf if you do not wish to play. I enjoy playing against smurfs because it is typically a far better learning opportunity than playing against my own mmr. If avoiding smurfs were an objective of mine, then I would put significant effort to creating a friend group to inhouse with instead of playing on the ladder.
Ideally the devs put all effort into making the game worth playing first. After that a ton of QoL stuff comes before smurfing (both definitions) for me. To solve long queue times I'd rather have an "I'm willing to play people way above my mmr if their (queue is long)" checkbox than any behavior modification.
Some of my favorite sc2 memories were playing against high master/GM while I was still in diamond. Most of the time I didn't stand a chance, but i almost beat combat ex once .
On July 08 2021 09:41 RenSC2 wrote: Smurfs are currently being defined as accounts with purposely tanked MMR to play against lower ranked players. Alternate accounts at nearly the same rank as the main are typically just called Alts now. There may be some holdouts on the old definition, but there seems to be pretty widespread agreement on the definition of smurfs at this point.
One issue with most competitive games is that people want to win more than 50% of the time, but the ladder is designed to get everyone (except the very top and very bottom) to 50% win rate. That's why we see smurfs... people want to win more than they want to compete.
It could explain some of the appeal of a game like Fortnite, where being better at the game meant winning more. In SC2 or LoL, being better at the game means you get a higher numerical rank, but you don't win more after your MMR adjusts to your new skill level. It's not really a flaw in the actual game itself, but a flaw in people not being able to accept 50% win rate.
Some people tank mmr for different reasons.
For example, The other day I tanked my mmr by over 1k points on purpose to test a very specific strategy. I had to tank all the way down to low diamond. Why at the diamond level? Because pool into hatch into aggression is much more common at the diamond level than it is masters or gm and if i wanted to gather as much information in the fastest possible way so that I could come to a conclusion on my testing as fast as possible, tanking to diamond level was my best option for gathering data. I immediately left every tvt and tvp during the testing period simply because i was testing a specific response vs the above mentioned zerg opening. If blizzard actually gave players the option to veto certain races on ladder like they do maps, i wouldn't have had to auto leave games vs races that i didn't want to play vs at any given time. This is also an example of the system not serving me as I need it to(lack of race vetoing on ladder) so I had to take measures into my own hands. It's not my responsibility to care what effect(s) this has on someone else's mmr as that's above my paygrade, i just play the game, i'm not an employee tasked with the responsibility of making sure the system is working. Someone might ask then why play ranked? Because the quality of games are generally better in ranked than unranked and more often than not I play against real builds/responses/main races in ranked than in unranked. Ranked also seems like a better place to learn than unranked for these reasons.
Also, rank doesn't mean anything to me and I don't consider that a reflection of my own skill by any means. Why? because right now i'm in diamond but I can consistently go toe to toe with gms in 2 out of 3 matchups. If i didn't have the skill, i wouldn't be able to go toe to toe with other gms on NA/EU/KR. This is a clear example that shows that rank doesn't equal skill.
Blizzard employees should spend their time balancing/updating the game instead of focusing on behavior modification. Fix your crappy system instead of expecting players to serve it and fix your balance.
We're getting way off topic now, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what exactly a matchmaker does. SC2's matchmaker was a more manual precursor to today's modern matchmakers which are powered by machine learning. Today's matchmakers can estimate your skill level based on a variety of statistics from a single game. SC2 took the most conservative possible route and uses game outcomes exclusively, just like the older systems you prefer (and that's the method I've decided to employ in ShieldBattery as well). That means SC2 only knows what each player's rating was before the match began, what the outcome was, and uses that to update the ratings for each player. It's very simple, very cut-and-dry.
A matchmaker's sole purpose is to provide the fairest, fastest, highest quality matches to players in the queue. If you are trying your hardest in every game, and you manage to reach Grandmaster, then your true skill level is Grandmaster. The matchmaker is not going to know whether you're half-assing a game, or playing a gimmick, or cheesing, and in fact it doesn't care what you do. You lost? Your skill rating must be lower than it previously estimated, so it falls. The arbitrary matchmaking ratings only function in the context of the distance between them, meaning if you are 4000 MMR then you will win 7/10 games against a 3700 MMR player and win 3/10 games against a 4300 MMR player. But those ratings are inherently unreliable when the player's behavior is unpredictable. You admit to gaming the system but then complain that it's not your job to make the system work because it should be working for you, however you neglect to realize that your actions directly inform the matchmaker about your ability.
SC2 also introduced divergent MMRs for each race, as well as separate Unranked MMRs for each race. Furthermore, the Unranked and Ranked pools are merged. That means there was really no reason for you to choose to sabotage your rank at all. In fact, many players choose to use Unranked as a "playground" option to mess around or innovate, and they effectively define a "tryhard" Ranked MMR and a "fun" Unranked MMR for themselves which is several standard deviations lower. This helps the matchmaker provide games that are more predictable in quality depending on your mood.
You like to put the onus of matchmaking accuracy solely on the SC2 developers, when in reality any of the classic systems you professed to enjoy (WGT, PGT, etc) would have (and in fact, were) been impacted negatively in exactly the same way when faced with manipulative behavior. A 2000 WGT player dropping down to 1500 to "try something out" would be playing against 1500-level competition, ruining the experiences of legitimate 1500 players to face your perceived-1500 suboptimal skill level.
On July 08 2021 09:41 RenSC2 wrote: Smurfs are currently being defined as accounts with purposely tanked MMR to play against lower ranked players. Alternate accounts at nearly the same rank as the main are typically just called Alts now. There may be some holdouts on the old definition, but there seems to be pretty widespread agreement on the definition of smurfs at this point.
One issue with most competitive games is that people want to win more than 50% of the time, but the ladder is designed to get everyone (except the very top and very bottom) to 50% win rate. That's why we see smurfs... people want to win more than they want to compete.
It could explain some of the appeal of a game like Fortnite, where being better at the game meant winning more. In SC2 or LoL, being better at the game means you get a higher numerical rank, but you don't win more after your MMR adjusts to your new skill level. It's not really a flaw in the actual game itself, but a flaw in people not being able to accept 50% win rate.
Some people tank mmr for different reasons.
For example, The other day I tanked my mmr by over 1k points on purpose to test a very specific strategy. I had to tank all the way down to low diamond. Why at the diamond level? Because pool into hatch into aggression is much more common at the diamond level than it is masters or gm and if i wanted to gather as much information in the fastest possible way so that I could come to a conclusion on my testing as fast as possible, tanking to diamond level was my best option for gathering data. I immediately left every tvt and tvp during the testing period simply because i was testing a specific response vs the above mentioned zerg opening. If blizzard actually gave players the option to veto certain races on ladder like they do maps, i wouldn't have had to auto leave games vs races that i didn't want to play vs at any given time. This is also an example of the system not serving me as I need it to(lack of race vetoing on ladder) so I had to take measures into my own hands. It's not my responsibility to care what effect(s) this has on someone else's mmr as that's above my paygrade, i just play the game, i'm not an employee tasked with the responsibility of making sure the system is working. Someone might ask then why play ranked? Because the quality of games are generally better in ranked than unranked and more often than not I play against real builds/responses/main races in ranked than in unranked. Ranked also seems like a better place to learn than unranked for these reasons.
Also, rank doesn't mean anything to me and I don't consider that a reflection of my own skill by any means. Why? because right now i'm in diamond but I can consistently go toe to toe with gms in 2 out of 3 matchups. If i didn't have the skill, i wouldn't be able to go toe to toe with other gms on NA/EU/KR. This is a clear example that shows that rank doesn't equal skill.
Blizzard employees should spend their time balancing/updating the game instead of focusing on behavior modification. Fix your crappy system instead of expecting players to serve it and fix your balance.
We're getting way off topic now, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what exactly a matchmaker does. SC2's matchmaker was a more manual precursor to today's modern matchmakers which are powered by machine learning. Today's matchmakers can estimate your skill level based on a variety of statistics from a single game. SC2 took the most conservative possible route and uses game outcomes exclusively, just like the older systems you prefer (and that's the method I've decided to employ in ShieldBattery as well). That means SC2 only knows what each player's rating was before the match began, what the outcome was, and uses that to update the ratings for each player. It's very simple, very cut-and-dry.
A matchmaker's sole purpose is to provide the fairest, fastest, highest quality matches to players in the queue. If you are trying your hardest in every game, and you manage to reach Grandmaster, then your true skill level is Grandmaster. The matchmaker is not going to know whether you're half-assing a game, or playing a gimmick, or cheesing, and in fact it doesn't care what you do. You lost? Your skill rating must be lower than it previously estimated, so it falls. The arbitrary matchmaking ratings only function in the context of the distance between them, meaning if you are 4000 MMR then you will win 7/10 games against a 3700 MMR player and win 3/10 games against a 4300 MMR player. But those ratings are inherently unreliable when the player's behavior is unpredictable. You admit to gaming the system but then complain that it's not your job to make the system work because it should be working for you, however you neglect to realize that your actions directly inform the matchmaker about your ability.
SC2 also introduced divergent MMRs for each race, as well as separate Unranked MMRs for each race. Furthermore, the Unranked and Ranked pools are merged. That means there was really no reason for you to choose to sabotage your rank at all. In fact, many players choose to use Unranked as a "playground" option to mess around or innovate, and they effectively define a "tryhard" Ranked MMR and a "fun" Unranked MMR for themselves which is several standard deviations lower. This helps the matchmaker provide games that are more predictable in quality depending on your mood.
You like to put the onus of matchmaking accuracy solely on the SC2 developers, when in reality any of the classic systems you professed to enjoy (WGT, PGT, etc) would have (and in fact, were) been impacted negatively in exactly the same way when faced with manipulative behavior. A 2000 WGT player dropping down to 1500 to "try something out" would be playing against 1500-level competition, ruining the experiences of legitimate 1500 players to face your perceived-1500 suboptimal skill level.
I agree we are getting off topic, but since you decided to response i feel compelled to do the same since you do bring up something that should be addressed and it wouldn't be fair for me to say the sc2 algorithm/mmr systems flat out sucks unless i explained why. I'll start off by saying the mmr system is extremely bad. Constantly getting matched with someone either 700 mmr below you or 700 mmr above you is a clear indication the system does not work as intended. It needs an overhaul. When I watched a stream and see a streamer get paired with someone 1400! mmr above him, the system is clearly not working. Again, i respect that you want to defend it but it has MORE problems than old systems. At least with old systems, if we knew someone was a hacker, we weren't forced to play them, we could just reject a match without any penalty at all. At least with old systems you had the option of picking and choosing who you play as well as what race you play vs. If we wanted to we could play someone lower or even higher provided both parties agreed. It was on demand. Players have zero control in choosing whether or not they want to play vs someone better than them or if they are fine with accepting an opponent that is technically lower skill than them when it comes to the new system, This is bad for players because it actually limits player options. Players like options. New systems is not versatile and a good portion of time the system isn't even working as intended. Wgtour/Pgtour/old bw ladder systems actually worked better for the players, these new systems are just straight up bad and could very well be a contributing factor as to why the sc2 playerbase is what it is today. There is really no downside to the old systems while these new systems are less player friendly and don't work on a consistent basis
Additionally, since this is a thread about a new rts game coming out, i'm sure it would be more beneficial for this feedback to be out on the internet than not as the new rts devs certainly have the potential to read this, especially since DK has been known to follow tlnet closely in the past.
Final edit: Yeah their matchmaking system is god awful, I just got paired vs someone 1700 points higher than me in a ranked que. Literally, 1700 points higher.
A machine learning system that takes into account more than winning and losing in order to handle the matchmaking would be great of course.
It could take into account factors such as highest achieved stable MMR in the last 3 months, screens per minute, EPM, game length, number of opponent units killed etc. Basically it would be much harder to smurf since you will not get easier opponents until you play consistently worse in every way imaginable.
4. The difference between no micro and perfect micro should be lower. A-moving most units should still get you 75% of the units power. Pro level micro can unlock the remaining 25%. There should not be a situation where the difference between gold level marines and Maru level marines is 500+%. It makes balancing the game for normal players almost impossible.
Of all the things people have said, I disagree with this the most - honestly I think the opposite should be true. There need to be units that are virtually worthless unless micro'd. All the freeing up of people's attention must go to something, I think micro would be a good sink for people's attention. This is maybe the biggest fault of SC2 micro vs. SC1 micro in my opinion, it just doesn't matter enough except with certain specific units or compositions. Pre-battle formations and spell-casting are typically a more valuable use of one's time than almost any micro you can do with many armies in SC2.
SCBW gets the balance right - slower time-to-kill plus better opportunities to micro makes the techniques of fighting battles much more expressive of skill level.
On July 09 2021 23:28 MockHamill wrote: A machine learning system that takes into account more than winning and losing in order to handle the matchmaking would be great of course.
It could take into account factors such as highest achieved stable MMR in the last 3 months, screens per minute, EPM, game length, number of opponent units killed etc. Basically it would be much harder to smurf since you will not get easier opponents until you play consistently worse in every way imaginable.
not even mentioning how terrible it would be to include things in the MMR that have nothing to do with skill level I don't see the point at all because it's much easier for smurfers anyway to just create a new account for it
4. The difference between no micro and perfect micro should be lower. A-moving most units should still get you 75% of the units power. Pro level micro can unlock the remaining 25%. There should not be a situation where the difference between gold level marines and Maru level marines is 500+%. It makes balancing the game for normal players almost impossible.
Of all the things people have said, I disagree with this the most - honestly I think the opposite should be true. There need to be units that are virtually worthless unless micro'd. All the freeing up of people's attention must go to something, I think micro would be a good sink for people's attention. This is maybe the biggest fault of SC2 micro vs. SC1 micro in my opinion, it just doesn't matter enough except with certain specific units or compositions. Pre-battle formations and spell-casting are typically a more valuable use of one's time than almost any micro you can do with many armies in SC2.
SCBW gets the balance right - slower time-to-kill plus better opportunities to micro makes the techniques of fighting battles much more expressive of skill level.
Indeed, I don’t think many will argue that BW is the harder game, but in larger engagements I think it still feels more fun and rewarding than SC2, for the reasons you outlined.
A moving just doesn’t feel all that satisfying, or fun. Least to me, games where I get a big advantage playing it out isn’t super fun for example. Games that are scrappy and weird with low unit numbers can be much more enjoyable.
Whatever the game’s mechanics or how it’s achieved, as a rule of thumb I feel the player should feel more powerful, with more they can do as the disembodied commander the more forces they have,
In SC2, to me anyway it feels like you go from being the commander of absolute elite special forces with advanced fighting doctrine in the early game, to being a general whose ordering men to advance and fire in the general direction of the enemy.
4. The difference between no micro and perfect micro should be lower. A-moving most units should still get you 75% of the units power. Pro level micro can unlock the remaining 25%. There should not be a situation where the difference between gold level marines and Maru level marines is 500+%. It makes balancing the game for normal players almost impossible.
Of all the things people have said, I disagree with this the most - honestly I think the opposite should be true. There need to be units that are virtually worthless unless micro'd. All the freeing up of people's attention must go to something, I think micro would be a good sink for people's attention. This is maybe the biggest fault of SC2 micro vs. SC1 micro in my opinion, it just doesn't matter enough except with certain specific units or compositions. Pre-battle formations and spell-casting are typically a more valuable use of one's time than almost any micro you can do with many armies in SC2.
SCBW gets the balance right - slower time-to-kill plus better opportunities to micro makes the techniques of fighting battles much more expressive of skill level.
Indeed, I don’t think many will argue that BW is the harder game, but in larger engagements I think it still feels more fun and rewarding than SC2, for the reasons you outlined.
A moving just doesn’t feel all that satisfying, or fun. Least to me, games where I get a big advantage playing it out isn’t super fun for example. Games that are scrappy and weird with low unit numbers can be much more enjoyable.
Whatever the game’s mechanics or how it’s achieved, as a rule of thumb I feel the player should feel more powerful, with more they can do as the disembodied commander the more forces they have,
In SC2, to me anyway it feels like you go from being the commander of absolute elite special forces with advanced fighting doctrine in the early game, to being a general whose ordering men to advance and fire in the general direction of the enemy.
Hm i honestly think this statement one sees a lot is overstated, while battles in bw are slower mostly due to the pathing, in a lot of ways it's very much a click vs a click with minimal micro, particularly because all the macro parts of the game are even more time consuming than in sc2. Now yeah, there are fun micro tricks in it which are not in sc2, like say muta stacking and micro, or carrier micro, etc. But compare some bio battle in sc2 to one in bw, it's night and day. Both games are largely about macro, and if anything, sc2 gives you more time to focus on micro of all sorts (now which ones are particularly satisfying depends largely on unit compositions).
With that in mind, i agree though that micro is probably one of the factors which should be a big difference in outcomes, as SirKibbleX said, the attention which gets freed by certain changes has to go somewhere. And in general it is the unit control which is the most satisfying in games, hell in mobas you basically do nothing else.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
I mean has anyone ever made an RTS where the fastest player is the best player? Seems like a straw man. I would've thought if that was any game, it's BW, but of course anyone who has followed BW knows that would be an awful description of it.
I think probably the two most famous players of all time are boxer and flash, who were both extremely strategic players... Most famous protoss player probably Bisu? For revolutionizing PvZ
It just seems weird to make it a goal for competitive play to not require extremely good mechanics and fast play. I think the other new RTS's in development still want that for competitive play and are figuring out ways to make their games more enjoyable for slower players. Maybe they figure RTS players will go to the other new RTS's in development and they're going to try to capture more players from other genres.
It's called warcraft 2, the person to get the most bloodlusted ogres generally won and nobody played human
I like how in SC2, you have mech style for example if you want lower APM army micro, and if you want a slower paced and more methodical game.
There's definitely elements that can be modernized further. Slowing the pace down even very slightly will be very helpful too since SC2 is very fast paced (and just allow more time for both players to interact/counter each other's moves like in BW, and focusing less on reactions and split second decisions).
Yeah, a lot of factors come together in BW to make the cadence of a battle feel so plodding and methodical compared to SC2, and some of them are the kind you can't really get away with in a new game, like clumsy real-time pathfinding. But I wonder if you'd get some of that kind of battle pacing if the damage to HP ratio was a bit lower than you see in SC2. So not necessarily making the game slower paced, but making it less damning to a player if they don't immediately react to the start of a battle.
Brood War has this fascinating thing that happens where because it's so hard to make sure all your units are fighting optimally, a supply gap doesn't actually necessarily mean a player is at a disadvantage. I think that's a super cool dynamic because your status in the game doesn't directly correlate to a number in the corner of the screen, but much deeper things like positioning dynamics and tactical micro decisions. There's potential to try and pin something like that down in a new RTS, and I hold out a smidge of hope.
I think a matchmaking system that allows you to tweak your desired winning probability would be of good use in practice. Not everyone likes a 50% winning outcome. Say you require 80% winning outcome at any one point in a day, your reward would also be adjusted to be small in case you win. If you lose, you take a bigger hit on your MMR. Sure people will farm MMR +1 points at a time, but it also encourages people to grind more which is healthy for the game population.
On July 14 2021 13:56 NewSunshine wrote: Yeah, a lot of factors come together in BW to make the cadence of a battle feel so plodding and methodical compared to SC2, and some of them are the kind you can't really get away with in a new game, like clumsy real-time pathfinding. But I wonder if you'd get some of that kind of battle pacing if the damage to HP ratio was a bit lower than you see in SC2. So not necessarily making the game slower paced, but making it less damning to a player if they don't immediately react to the start of a battle.
Brood War has this fascinating thing that happens where because it's so hard to make sure all your units are fighting optimally, a supply gap doesn't actually necessarily mean a player is at a disadvantage. I think that's a super cool dynamic because your status in the game doesn't directly correlate to a number in the corner of the screen, but much deeper things like positioning dynamics and tactical micro decisions. There's potential to try and pin something like that down in a new RTS, and I hold out a smidge of hope.
Hello,
I agree with this, it seems the best way to improve things.
But again, it shows Banelings as THE problem unit cause the damage is done in a single shoot.
Imo here the best way to tweak banelings is to increase his supply from 0.5 to 1, increase his hit points and increase a little bit his size.
Then following your idea, you have to increase a little bit the stimpack duration (with maybe decreasing in consequence the 'modified damage') cause lack of micro-ing in terran is punishing and oftenly you get trap and circle,... as Medivacs do against Mutalisks. Similary, the afterburner upgrade is the second most controversial upgrade cause pros doesn t care so much about it while a Bio casual Terran can enjoy it.
I strongly support you and youngest people here to make this kind of mod. This isn t so hard, and the testing tool units is already done. Again, some tweaks are needed but not so many.
Looking to this balance you will be able to smooth the relationship between units and avoid armies to get crushed as you re doing something else. With care, the adjustement of damage regarding the armor value can also be revelant to approach the minimum global modifications without breaking the balance.
On July 14 2021 13:56 NewSunshine wrote: Yeah, a lot of factors come together in BW to make the cadence of a battle feel so plodding and methodical compared to SC2, and some of them are the kind you can't really get away with in a new game, like clumsy real-time pathfinding. But I wonder if you'd get some of that kind of battle pacing if the damage to HP ratio was a bit lower than you see in SC2. So not necessarily making the game slower paced, but making it less damning to a player if they don't immediately react to the start of a battle.
Brood War has this fascinating thing that happens where because it's so hard to make sure all your units are fighting optimally, a supply gap doesn't actually necessarily mean a player is at a disadvantage. I think that's a super cool dynamic because your status in the game doesn't directly correlate to a number in the corner of the screen, but much deeper things like positioning dynamics and tactical micro decisions. There's potential to try and pin something like that down in a new RTS, and I hold out a smidge of hope.
I love how SC2 micros up to a point, very responsive and good interactions, but the micro gets less and less enjoyable the bigger armies go. Units respond really nicely and just feel good to control, and honestly that’s something I find rarely in the genre.
It’s a tricky thing to tweak without going backwards and bringing in archaic UI restrictions, but I’ll be very excited if I ever hear of a game that nails it.
Warcraft 3 is too slow for some tastes, but is a clear example of a game with an HP/damage ratio that’s flipped around. There are still moments you have to be clutch over the course of a fight, but it’s more cumulative.
A max v max engagement in Starcraft can feel like two boxers with insane punching power and the first one to react gets an instant knockout, WC3 it’s like having a boxing match that always goes to 12 rounds, and whoever has boxed the most proficiently usually wins.
Perhaps there’s some happy medium between the two that is yet to be explored!
On July 14 2021 14:06 keaneu wrote: I think a matchmaking system that allows you to tweak your desired winning probability would be of good use in practice. Not everyone likes a 50% winning outcome. Say you require 80% winning outcome at any one point in a day, your reward would also be adjusted to be small in case you win. If you lose, you take a bigger hit on your MMR. Sure people will farm MMR +1 points at a time, but it also encourages people to grind more which is healthy for the game population.
But that's how a matchmaking system works...
The "tightness" of matchmaking has been tweaked dozens of times on SC2 (as is standard for modern games), based on player population, time of day, average queue time, and other similar meta-factors. One of the more controversial ones is engagement, and one thing that many games do is idealize player engagement in the context of difficulty as a "wave", where players tend to spend the most time per session if their game intensity goes in this type of order: medium, hard, easy, medium, hard, easy, medium, hard ... So, the matchmaker may influence matches to nudge (not enforce) player experience in that direction. What that looks like in practice is that when it comes time to find an "easy" game, maybe instead of the search range being +/-200 it's +100/-300, and for a "hard" game maybe it starts out -100/+300. In both cases you can still find an opponent in the -100/+100 range immediately. This is all invisible to the player but shapes their experience in the interest of improved engagement, improved player perception, and longer play time per session.
Anyway, mathematically speaking, the rating updates occur exactly how you describe. Let's say that your rating is 1000, an "easy" match that you are projected to win 80% of the time would have a rating of 700, and a "hard" match that you are projected to win 20% of the time would have a rating of 1300.
If you (1000) play against the 700 player and win, you would only gain +4 rating, but you would lose -16 if you lost. This means that if you played enough games, your rating would stay the same if you won 8 matches (+32) and lost 2 (-32), literally defining that 80% expectation.
If you play against the 1300 player and win, you would gain +16 rating, but only lose -4 rating if you lost. Just like in the first example, your expectation to win mathematically is 20% because it would only take 2 wins out of 10 games to maintain your current rating definition.
One thing that REALLY annoyed me by the Stormgate devs is that they claim they are "the developer team that made sc2 and wc3".
David Kim is not with them. Dustin Browder is not with them. Rob Pardo is not with them.
In fact David Kim is with it's own studio (the one in this thread) Uncapped games. DustimBrowder is with Mike Morhaime in Dreamhaven, and Rob Pardo has it's own dev team in Bonfire studios.
For what is worth, Dream haven did announce that they have some sort of deal with frost giant studios, but no details were given and no info has come out out of that announcement. So maybe dreamhaven was develiping an RTS but decided to focus on other types of games and just give advice to Frost Giagant who knows.
But the good news about this is that even if Frost Giant doesn't do well (Which I hope they do), we should at least have 1, if not 2, high profile RTS coming in the next few years.
Of course! ^_^ Was happy to see they're planning on going free to play and the timeline is making progress. Perhaps it could line up with a StormGate release or shortly thereafter? hmmm. Content creators going to be real busy this coming year XD
On June 25 2023 03:36 [Phantom] wrote: One thing that REALLY annoyed me by the Stormgate devs is that they claim they are "the developer team that made sc2 and wc3".
David Kim is not with them. Dustin Browder is not with them. Rob Pardo is not with them.
In fact David Kim is with it's own studio (the one in this thread) Uncapped games. DustimBrowder is with Mike Morhaime in Dreamhaven, and Rob Pardo has it's own dev team in Bonfire studios.
For what is worth, Dream haven did announce that they have some sort of deal with frost giant studios, but no details were given and no info has come out out of that announcement. So maybe dreamhaven was develiping an RTS but decided to focus on other types of games and just give advice to Frost Giagant who knows.
But the good news about this is that even if Frost Giant doesn't do well (Which I hope they do), we should at least have 1, if not 2, high profile RTS coming in the next few years.
______ Thanks for the update Cicada!
Dreamhaven is publishing and collaberating on Stormgate AFAIK
On September 25 2023 13:08 gobbledydook wrote: Large army sizes are fun, that's why people play BGH maps...nothing like sending waves and waves of carriers.
I don't think you can get "proper" multitasking if total army sizes are limited to like 20-25 units max. The best part of RTS games are when you can split your army into different parts around the map. If anything I go above what we have in Sc2/Sc1.
I think a lot of these debates will be settled or at least focused when these new RTS titles come out. I personally am unsure about where I come out on this stuff, but as a gamer in my 40s that’s been playing RTS and pretty much every other genre of game in both digital and tabletop formats for over 30 years there are a few things that feel like intuitive truths:
1. There is something about the ways the units move in SC2 that feels smoother and more responsive than any other RTS, and I do think speed has something to do with it but would just note that there’s nuance here (e.g. accel/decel rate versus movement speed, take a look at the proposed changes to the Tempest to make it more responsive). Byun winning the world championships was maybe partly a unit exploit with his unrivaled speed and dexterity, but it didn’t feel unfair because he was doing things no one else could do (Maru ironically attempting the “just play like Byun” reaper micro in 2016 was pretty hilarious),
2. As a general rule in strategy games, mechanisms that simply tax your memory or executive functions without require meaningful tactical or strategic decisions are simply bad game design. It’s just not fun or interesting to see someone lose a game because they forgot to make an upgrade or got supply blocked at a critical moment. Again, there is nuance here. The point isn’t that high-APM games are bad game design. FPS games, if you count the constant movements and actions, to me feel even more high-paced and stressful than SC2, but thank god the devs don’t make me click away from my screen and press buttons every 15 seconds. So even though it sucks to lose with a single headshot, it doesn’t feel dumb to lose that way.
3. I’ve seen some “modernization” of strategy game design in the last 10 years that I think hasn’t quite hit the RTS genre yet. The basic understanding from devs and designers is to “find the fun” and then lean into those mechanisms and minimize unnecessary admin or other tasks that either don’t enable the fun or may undermine it. So what are those mechanisms in an RTS? Honestly it’s not that different than many other strategy games. Mechanisms that allow you to hide and pay a significant price to secure critical intel are fun. Mechanisms that allow for different, creative builds and evolving metas are fun. Mechanisms that reward speed and dexterity skill in fights are fun. Mechanisms that reward keen observation and adaptation to evolving game states are fun. Mechanisms that prevent turtling or grinding to victory, and allow for comebacks with extremely skillful play, are fun. All the best, most memorable moments in SC2 include this kind of stuff. Mechanisms that reward the player who memorizes and accurately executes on a preferred build order are not fun.
4. These things are hard to get right. If you get rid of these annoying macro/admin mechanisms, people will complain. Some people do find that stuff to be fun. There are not objectively correct answers to these things.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
IMO focusing on "strategy" in competitive play is a fruitless endeavor. Every game that's played at a high level by a large group of people is destined to be optimized to death, until there are only a handful of viable "strategies" at best, and creativity is more often punished than rewarded.
RTS, despite its name, has always been more about tactics than strategy. If you tone down the technical aspect significantly, you may actually tone down some of the appeal.
Granted, games like C&C Rivals have been interesting and fun despite the lower barrier to entry, but I'm not sure they scratch the same itch that RTS players are feeling.
What would improve these "mundane tasks" would, in my opinion, be to make them more visible. Creep or calling down mules are good examples of that visibility (not arguing whether those are good macro mechanics or not). Larva injects or chrono boosts, on the other hand, are not visible enough.
Broodwar had many years to introduce players to those mechanics, but today's gaming doesn't have anywhere near that patience. The question is how to reintroduce the difficulty created by technical limitations or even unintended unit behavior. For example, a unit could have an "anti-apm" mechanic. If you give more than three commands in five seconds, it stops for a second (annoyed or input overload), or a unit moves slower if you bunch up too many in a small space.
Honoring BW also means innovating because BW already exists. And there is a market for difficult 1v1 games. A recipe for disaster is just trying to make a game based around the inability to control everything "easier". A 1v1 game is not easy or hard, the difficulty depends on your opponent. Instead of removing ways for players to differentiate themselves, more options should be added, maybe more that do not rely only on speed.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
lol when I hear that everyone can play.. Everyone can play BW, the question is how well, and the one who can click the fastest doesn't win either. I'm sure it won't work. A game that everyone can play and should still be competitive. Will it be a card game haha?
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
Polt is a great example for SC2. Very cerebral player.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
Tbh, I don't think the FPS genre really tests the same aspects of the player similarly. Starcraft and other RTSes push player by requiring routine inputs which almost settle into a flow state, and then flipping you up by introducing random interactive elements further taxing you. The cognitive load in CS is significantly different and makes the random interactive elements the focus. This, in turn, pushes the allotted load onto a somewhat simplified decision space, allowing you to have the insane speed and accuracy needed to beat someone in a duel when both of you are peeking or responding to the peek.
In Starcraft, you have to predict/maneuver/win the battle, but minimize the cost of the attention that could have gone to macro. The balancing act is the game, and changing this equation may make the game feel unrewarding/bland/unfair. Making a game with the routine being significantly less important is definitely a possibility, but how this is done is obviously a major point. An example is caster units in SC2, because one high impact spell that can be spammed with 1 control group has a mechanical cost of a click or two, while the response usually requires a higher degree of investment.
Simplifying the macro is one thing, but the shape of the micro aspects becomes extremely important to nail, because otherwise it can have larger scale consequences that won't even be redeemable after game release. (Side note: would auto battlers just be an RTS with macro mechanics essentially removed?)
Personally, the game won't feel as rewarding if the micro elements are even bigger deciders, because games that test these skills more (like DOTA/LOL) show that heroes with bigger macro mechanics aren't as popular (Meepo/Chen/Enchantress etc in DOTA, idk in League).
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
The developments in Chess are also overlapping with the evolution in BW - now that replays are plentifully available, first person footage is easily accessible & timers have been added to the game UI, people have been copying progamer build orders to a second. Practicing and memorizing these will get you to higher ranked games by itself, even though problems will of course start to arise when opponents are high enough level themselves to dismiss the advantages gained by following the first 5 minutes to a second. This doesn't make it pointless though - this happens in every game genre - even in non-competitive games like Diablo where people want to copy the most optimal builds, even while leveling.
Also, I'm not missing your point, I just don't agree ;-) While I do acknowledge BW has various mechanics that are outdated (i.e. pathing), many operational tasks that one could call mindless end up having more influence on the game's flow at higher levels. A casual player will attempt to keep worker production up from the very start of the game. Is this a mindless task that punishes players who can't keep this up? Advanced build orders have various moments where worker production is temporarily cut and/or workers are switched between gathering gas and minerals. This leads to a variety of different timings and additional game depth. Obviously this type of depth was never a conscious part of the original game design, but leaving these features out by default will also eliminate any optimization variety and strategical depth coming out of this.
I'd say BW is more of a a happy accident rather than excellent game design. However, for some reason all attempts made to make a superior modern competitive RTS game have failed (or at least have been inferior to BW). So I think it's expected that David Kim's words don't resonate with the majority of the BW player base.
Regarding the FPS references - I'm not very well known with competitive FPS, but when I think back of high level duel= based FPS (since RTS primarily revolves around 1:1 as well), aside from speed & accuracy, optimizing map routes and learning spawn times to pick up armor, weapons and ammo has a really big influence on the game. Team games of course have a completely different dynamic.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
Tbh, I don't think the FPS genre really tests the same aspects of the player similarly. Starcraft and other RTSes push player by requiring routine inputs which almost settle into a flow state, and then flipping you up by introducing random interactive elements further taxing you. The cognitive load in CS is significantly different and makes the random interactive elements the focus. This, in turn, pushes the allotted load onto a somewhat simplified decision space, allowing you to have the insane speed and accuracy needed to beat someone in a duel when both of you are peeking or responding to the peek.
In Starcraft, you have to predict/maneuver/win the battle, but minimize the cost of the attention that could have gone to macro. The balancing act is the game, and changing this equation may make the game feel unrewarding/bland/unfair. Making a game with the routine being significantly less important is definitely a possibility, but how this is done is obviously a major point. An example is caster units in SC2, because one high impact spell that can be spammed with 1 control group has a mechanical cost of a click or two, while the response usually requires a higher degree of investment.
Simplifying the macro is one thing, but the shape of the micro aspects becomes extremely important to nail, because otherwise it can have larger scale consequences that won't even be redeemable after game release. (Side note: would auto battlers just be an RTS with macro mechanics essentially removed?)
Personally, the game won't feel as rewarding if the micro elements are even bigger deciders, because games that test these skills more (like DOTA/LOL) show that heroes with bigger macro mechanics aren't as popular (Meepo/Chen/Enchantress etc in DOTA, idk in League).
There's an RTS-like autobattler I forget the name of (Looked it up - Mechabellum) that feels like a good reference point. Still a fun game without macro, but certainly feels like it lacks long-term bite of a proper RTS. Also Deserts of Kharak for a macro-lite RTS, again fun but feels like you lose long-term appeal to apparent simplicity.
As for macro champions in League - there aren't any. Those with controllable pets have limited control over said pets, and those pets never have active abilities. League seems to follow the same paradigm as dota where the most consistently popular are strong things with high skill expression (Pango/Ta and Zed/Yasuo) and strong straightforward meatballs (Tidehunter/Pudge and Nautilus/Darius). The consistent element people care about is the power fantasy - if it feels like you're winning, that matters more than unique mechanics or playstyle. Plenty of unique in League - Still noone plays Ivern unless he's actually good xD
As a watcher of competitive BW, it has seemed that part of the fun is that it is so incredibly difficult to optimize control over many diverse units and aspects of the game that players can find ways to express themselves uniquely by choosing which parts of the game they are going to devote attention to and when. This room for creativity makes it possible for players to frequently have fresh takes on what the best way is to win, and usually there isn't really a right answer so the meta-game stays fresh in a seesaw manner with the help of mapmakers trying out different combinations of ideas to reward players who think differently about how to approach the game.
In contrast, in watching SC2, all the top players look more similar to each other in how they play.
To bring an example from sports/athletics: As a fan of baseball, the "difficulty" of professional baseball and the fact that I'll never throw 100 mph doesn't diminish my enjoyment of playing catch with a friend. Baseball is also an absurdly strategic game.
The difficulty of controlling units in BW does not make it less fun to hop on to Battlenet and play customs with my friends and to try not to die to zealot rushes or play other UMS games.
[B]In contrast, in watching SC2, all the top players look more similar to each other in how they play..
That's not entirely true. Especially the Terrans have big stylistic differences, and they are atypical players for Protoss (ShowTime) and Zerg (Dark) as well. But the differences are smaller than in BW, and I would agree that more stylistic diversity would be great for the game and that macro mechanics are most likely needed for that. Maybe rhythm games could be an inspiration for those macro mechanics to make them more exciting.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
Tbh, I don't think the FPS genre really tests the same aspects of the player similarly. Starcraft and other RTSes push player by requiring routine inputs which almost settle into a flow state, and then flipping you up by introducing random interactive elements further taxing you. The cognitive load in CS is significantly different and makes the random interactive elements the focus. This, in turn, pushes the allotted load onto a somewhat simplified decision space, allowing you to have the insane speed and accuracy needed to beat someone in a duel when both of you are peeking or responding to the peek.
In Starcraft, you have to predict/maneuver/win the battle, but minimize the cost of the attention that could have gone to macro. The balancing act is the game, and changing this equation may make the game feel unrewarding/bland/unfair. Making a game with the routine being significantly less important is definitely a possibility, but how this is done is obviously a major point. An example is caster units in SC2, because one high impact spell that can be spammed with 1 control group has a mechanical cost of a click or two, while the response usually requires a higher degree of investment.
Simplifying the macro is one thing, but the shape of the micro aspects becomes extremely important to nail, because otherwise it can have larger scale consequences that won't even be redeemable after game release. (Side note: would auto battlers just be an RTS with macro mechanics essentially removed?)
Personally, the game won't feel as rewarding if the micro elements are even bigger deciders, because games that test these skills more (like DOTA/LOL) show that heroes with bigger macro mechanics aren't as popular (Meepo/Chen/Enchantress etc in DOTA, idk in League).
There's an RTS-like autobattler I forget the name of (Looked it up - Mechabellum) that feels like a good reference point. Still a fun game without macro, but certainly feels like it lacks long-term bite of a proper RTS. Also Deserts of Kharak for a macro-lite RTS, again fun but feels like you lose long-term appeal to apparent simplicity.
As for macro champions in League - there aren't any. Those with controllable pets have limited control over said pets, and those pets never have active abilities. League seems to follow the same paradigm as dota where the most consistently popular are strong things with high skill expression (Pango/Ta and Zed/Yasuo) and strong straightforward meatballs (Tidehunter/Pudge and Nautilus/Darius). The consistent element people care about is the power fantasy - if it feels like you're winning, that matters more than unique mechanics or playstyle. Plenty of unique in League - Still noone plays Ivern unless he's actually good xD
Not to go too far OT but Heroes of the Storm had Lost Vikings, which is the most macro heavy unit(s) I have ever played in a MOBA and a good Viking player had a ridiculous large impact in the game, be it amateur or pro level.
On September 27 2023 01:20 Agh wrote: Late to the party but all of my experiences talking with David Kim lead me to believe he's pretty poor fit in any type of lead role.
Guy is the king of being presented with problems & issues, acknowledging them, then doing absolutely nothing or making the problem worse.
Maybe time dissolves egos but my expectations couldn't be any lower.
He did what he was supposed to do, but I do agree he had no real value in SC2 as far as advancing the meta or gameplay in a positive way. He was told to appease the casuals make it the most fun for them so they could sell the most copies and made sweeping changes to things to nerf their use into the ground so people would be happier during their games. It made pro play worse and very linier and boring with very little stylistic adaptation after that, sure there were some okayish end game nerfs that worked out well because they were far too strong considering their counters, but for the most part it was eliminating early game threats, so that noobs could have an easier time.
Meanwhile just as he would nerf whatever early/mid game meta was going on, the pros were figuring out how to play against it and crush because of how hard their opponents invested into it. Forcing everyone to realize that early/begging of mid game aggression wasn't really possible and you had to go down the one lane and play a long macro game instead of agression.
I have no hope for his project it will be lame on launch.
I think you can give the dirty plebs their due and make rts games that don't actually require mechanical skill to play. But to say Broodwar is outdated is just dumb. Broodwar will survive every rise and fall of every civilization from now until humanity itself disappears. Mark my words on that.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
I think you're missing the point, actually.
That attention demand and being dragged in multiple directions- how you manage it yourself and exploit it in your opponent- is part of the strategy. Not just hitting timings, mixing unit compositions and picking spots to fight. It isn't arbitrary, it's foundational.
And if anything, removing it makes it more like chess.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
I think you're missing the point, actually.
That attention demand and being dragged in multiple directions- how you manage it yourself and exploit it in your opponent- is part of the strategy. Not just hitting timings, mixing unit compositions and picking spots to fight. It isn't arbitrary, it's foundational.
And if anything, removing it makes it more like chess.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
I think you're missing the point, actually.
That attention demand and being dragged in multiple directions- how you manage it yourself and exploit it in your opponent- is part of the strategy. Not just hitting timings, mixing unit compositions and picking spots to fight. It isn't arbitrary, it's foundational.
And if anything, removing it makes it more like chess.
Obviously. But there's a difference between taxing speed, dexterity, and executive functions for arbitrary reasons, and doing so in ways that reflect tactical or strategic depth. As I said, I feel a lot can be learned from what makes FPS so tactically rich and fun (clearly I'm not going for chess 2.0 here). I suppose if I had to sum up the way I feel about modern RTS, it would be that too much of the attention and executive function tax is drawn onto various aspects of hitting macro cycles and memorizing and hitting build order timings, and too little is focused on creativity/diversity in build strategy and micro skill.
By the way, there are design solutions that could be toyed with here, like allowing players to set an AI default to auto-build upgrades (unless you tell it not to), auto-build workers and send them to mine at the most efficient location (unless you tell it not to), and to build more pylons/depots/overlords as needed (or frankly get rid of marginal supply requirements altogether and just retain the supply cap). Basically AI-automating things that don't really involve much of a "choice" so players aren't winning or losing games simply for forgetting to build an essential upgrade or whatever. Remember that there's already lots of AI mechanics in SC2 (pathfinding, fighting, etc.).
The other wild idea I have is to make at least some units more micro-able by being able to toggle into FPS mode for those units. Imagine if you could get added DPS by going into FPS mode with a ghost for a headshot, for example. But beyond this FPS toggling idea, there are ways to make units a bit more micro-able. I don't know that WC3 micro mechanics are the way to go, for some reason that game feels slower and less responsive to me, but maybe that's just personal preference or because I'm not used to it. But maybe some more micro-able dodge, absorption, deflection, reflection, etc. mechanics that can reward micro skill and create moments of surprise and excitement. I don't know how I feel about hero units that can level up. Alternative win conditions like in AOE IV are interesting, but I haven't played and don't know if they are viable.
Less wild ideas include having many, many more maps in the map pool and having more diversity in terms of map features. And adding in new units and balance patching more frequently. Or somehow making the games shorter and having minimum Bo7 series.
My theory is that with these kinds of tweaks, the games will become more interesting and exciting. Right now, it feels a little like you decide on a build, let's say a two-base timing build, and then just do your best to remember and execute the build order, hit the timing as accurately as possible, and hope the other player didn't hard counter you. You don't really want your most elite pro players calling your game a coin flip or rock, paper, scissors, you know what I mean? If you're working with like a 100 map map pool and an ever shifting roster of units and balance patches, it'll require more adaptation and creativity, and you'll have to try things out and hope you can micro your way to victory. It'll be more chaotic for sure, but thus the hopefully shorter games and longer series to smooth things out.
I get that this is personal gaming preference as much as anything, and I still really like SC2 and grew up on all the foundational RTS titles, but it does feel like there's an RTS out there that's better for my playstyle.
If I remember correctly, AoE4 had a quite diverse mappool with the problem that on some maps there was one clearly favored race. Risky business. To the FPS idea: I think we discusses this in the Stormgate thread already. There are quite a few games that do this sort of thing and they are not very known / successful from an esport pov To the build order "problem": In CS:GO you have to know and remember multiple nade spots and timings on each map. Not much difference to remembering builds orders honestly. I really don't see this as a problem at all personally.
I don't wanna badmouth your ideas, just giving some perspective. You go about this openminded and I really like that
I suppose if I had to sum up the way I feel about modern RTS, it would be that too much of the attention and executive function tax is drawn onto various aspects of hitting macro cycles and memorizing and hitting build order timings, and too little is focused on creativity/diversity in build strategy and micro skill.
I think you haven’t experienced what it’s like to enjoy it.
Think about a jazz trio improvising: they’ve got a very bare outline of the song they’re playing, then they each have musical ideas while they play, and they’re each listening to each other and responding to each others musical ideas, like a conversation. If the pianist has an idea of what they want to play next and it’s a really mechanically difficult thing to play, it’s not fun if they struggle to play it. However, if they’re playing within their ability level, then the greater mechanical difficulty is actually more satisfying to play. Playing it smoothly and beautifully and perfectly in time feels really great. Playing something that is mechanically easy can also make for good music, but it lacks a dimension of satisfaction.
Of course, the music is what’s most important, so the mechanics support the music. StarCraft is similar this way: you have a strategy that is flexible and subject to improvisation, you’ve got a wide range of mechanical difficulty but you’re not forced to take on more than you’re comfortable with, and ultimately the strategy is what’s most important.
Now, some people will take an excellent jazz performance recording and painstakingly transcribe it note for note, and then attempt to play it while lacking the mechanics to play it beautifully, and they'll play it without the context within which it was originally improvised.
That is how a lot of people play StarCraft: they poorly imitate strategies they don’t understand that require mechanics far beyond them. It stresses them out and it’s dissatisfying. That's not the game's fault! That's not really playing the game any more than someone copying a jazz performance note-for-note is playing jazz.
The fact is it’s difficult to play well. It’s difficult in more dimensions that most other games. Removing those dimensions would remove its character, its identity.
I agree it can be improved in certain ways. But the simple idea that people have of identifying this or that mundane task and saying let’s just remove those so that a higher percentage of tasks are meaningful, that’s crazy. Doing the tasks is supposed to be satisfying, like a fidget spinner or something. If I have the musical idea to arpeggiate a chord up 3 octaves, I want to actually push down each key and hear the note sing out when I do that physical action. The “modernize RTS” crowd wants to take away my many hours of practicing how to play arpeggios beautifully and give me an “auto arpeggio” button to push, because apparently the only worthwhile part of the process is having the idea of playing an arpeggio. Naw. Let me play it. It's more fun to actually play it. It's not only more fun, it's an entirely different experience, as different as listening to music versus playing music.
When I say I want successors to StarCraft to remain mechanically difficult, that is what I'm talking about: the marrying of mechanical difficulty and strategy.
When we look at how clunky BW is and continue the music/piano analogy, I think BW is like playing on a shitty piano. No one had ever played a piano before so playing it at all was an incredible experience. But some of the keys were sticky or really heavy to press, so it was exceedingly difficult to play smoothly and beautifully. So things like improving the pathfinding make sense to me. When an SCV is told to build something, it should reliably and promptly go build it. Things like that.
But people come to the StarCraft community, talking about what's wrong with StarCraft and what they want from future RTS, and they take this idea too far.
Specifically, the idea that any action that is "mindless" should be removed from the game. Or worse yet, any action that is both difficult to master and is essential to executing a strategy should be made easier to master, so that people with limited mechanical ability still have maximum strategic options. Unfortunately, that's just not what kind of game it is. The better your mechanics, the more possibilities open up to you.
If you don’t want to learn hard things, then play at a beginner level forever. It can be fun too. Just like easy to play music can be nice to listen to. It's also satisfying to play if that's where your skill level is at. Or don't play the ranked ladder. RTS is also campaigns, co-op, etc. A lot of the people making the new RTS's know how special a mechanically difficult 1v1 ladder is so they're keeping it that way. And for the players who don't know how to enjoy it, they're making other game modes and content. Like in Stormgate, I believe the plan is for 3v3 to be a different game than 1v1. Like 3v3 could have heroes and 1v1 won't. Obviously there will be a lot of overlap, but I think there'll be less multitasking and macro in 3v3, and more micro and coordination with teammates. And then there's co-op too.
Or just play a different RTS, far away from the successors to StarCraft. Or a different genre. IDK.
Beautiful post, NonY. That's exactly how I feel about it too. A friend of mine has brought up those quibbles with the game before and I was unable to eloquently describe why I didn't want Starcraft to be an auto battler.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
Tbh, I don't think the FPS genre really tests the same aspects of the player similarly. Starcraft and other RTSes push player by requiring routine inputs which almost settle into a flow state, and then flipping you up by introducing random interactive elements further taxing you. The cognitive load in CS is significantly different and makes the random interactive elements the focus. This, in turn, pushes the allotted load onto a somewhat simplified decision space, allowing you to have the insane speed and accuracy needed to beat someone in a duel when both of you are peeking or responding to the peek.
In Starcraft, you have to predict/maneuver/win the battle, but minimize the cost of the attention that could have gone to macro. The balancing act is the game, and changing this equation may make the game feel unrewarding/bland/unfair. Making a game with the routine being significantly less important is definitely a possibility, but how this is done is obviously a major point. An example is caster units in SC2, because one high impact spell that can be spammed with 1 control group has a mechanical cost of a click or two, while the response usually requires a higher degree of investment.
Simplifying the macro is one thing, but the shape of the micro aspects becomes extremely important to nail, because otherwise it can have larger scale consequences that won't even be redeemable after game release. (Side note: would auto battlers just be an RTS with macro mechanics essentially removed?)
Personally, the game won't feel as rewarding if the micro elements are even bigger deciders, because games that test these skills more (like DOTA/LOL) show that heroes with bigger macro mechanics aren't as popular (Meepo/Chen/Enchantress etc in DOTA, idk in League).
I like your take a lot, but would dispute some aspects of it. First, though I'm not a neuroscientist, I don't think that the nuanced distinctions you're trying to make between RTS and FPS matter in practice too much, at least if we're talking about the micro aspects of RTS. In both, you're intuitively predicting and maneuvering, and executing the mechanics of battling, because frankly there is often not enough time to process the relevant information and make a calculated decision. These are still incredibly important decisions--often game-ending ones--but they are intuitive, realtime mostly tactical decisions that are at the crux of what makes these genres different from turn-based strategy games.
The major distinction from a cognitive perspective is actually with how the two genres interact with memory-based mechanics, in that RTS taxes short- and long-term memory a ton more than FPS (did I remember to send my workers back to mine? did I remember to make that upgrade? am I remembering this build order sequence correctly?). Sure in FPS you maybe need to remember to reload and memorize the terrain features of a map, but on balance there's very little by way of memory-based mechanics or game features. The most important thing to understand about the distinction here is that memory-based mechanics do not involve strategic or tactical decision-making. This is why it feels deeply unfair and tragic when an SC2 pro loses a game because they simply forgot to make a critical upgrade but it feels totally fair and exciting when a player eliminates another player with a single headshot.
I agree that when/how often/under what circumstances a player decides to look away from their armies to macro up are critical decisions that are core to RTS, but I guess I question whether they should be. You asked whether an RTS without macro cycles would essentially be an auto-battler, but ironically I'd argue that the macro and micro mechanisms in SC2 make the game function very similarly to an auto-battler. Build order win games are almost by definition auto-battlers, and there are entire Bronze-to-GM playthroughs that involve macro'ing up to a specific unit composition and F2'ing to victory. Elite pros over the last few years of meta have been calling certain matchups a coin flip (worse than an autobattler), or a game of rock, paper, scissors (the worst form of autobattler).
You've got it backwards: more than anything it's the micro that distinguishes RTS from auto-battlers. The problem is that it would be incredibly hard to control an entire army in battle even if that was the only thing you were focused on. The macro-heavy gameplay loop unfortunately means that most battles involve poking and retreating and hoping to jump on your opponent's army or sneak in a doom drop while they weren't paying attention--probably because they were macro'ing up back home! Losing a game because you happened to look away from your army at an unfortunate moment to build a pylon because game devs say you need to build pylons does not feel like the epitome of strategy and tactics. RTS without the unnecessary macro execution cycles is honestly closer to what RTS should be to me. With it, it's like RTS + rhythm game.
There are underlying strategic and tactical aspects to what RTS players and designers call "macro" that are valuable to retain. For example, the decision of whether to invest in economy or invest in army units, the decision of which units to build, the decision of whether to make more units or make upgrades so that your existing units will be stronger, the decision to make tech switch, or the decision to go all-in. Unlike micro or army movement and positioning decisions, which almost always need to be intuitive and instantaneous, these macro decisions are often strategic decisions. We want them to be informed, considered decisions, even if you may gain an edge by making them very quickly. Taking a second or two to think and make a decision, or making a decision and then cancelling, comes with significant costs...you do not need extraneous administrative and cognitive taxing to make this tension between micro and macro feel urgent. I don't understand why people feel that we need to force players to look away from and relinquish control of their armies while simultaneously playing memory mini-games in order to make RTS work in a way that feels right.
Imagine how much more fun and interesting battles could be if players could remain focused on their units and armies (while "remotely" making the keyboard inputs to execute their builds, and allowing pre-decided default build sequences and actions that could be cancelled and reprogrammed). The auto-wins when someone isn't looking at their army would be gone, as would the boring, reflexive auto-retreats when fights happen to coincide with base-building actions or macro cycle timings. You'd have a lot more potential for meaningfully micro-able units and unit attacks, defenses, movements, and spells that would produce a lot of very interesting unit interaction possibilities. Many of the most iconic and hype SC2 moments would happen more often...more APM/attention for those burrowed banelings, for example
Anyways, I recognize part of this is just preference, but I do think a significant chunk of the community conflates macro with rote memory-taxing and execution on pre-decided, memorized build orders. It can and should be much more about strategic decisions related to how to calibrate and adapt your economy v. army balance, unit compositions, etc. to evolving, novel game states.
I suppose if I had to sum up the way I feel about modern RTS, it would be that too much of the attention and executive function tax is drawn onto various aspects of hitting macro cycles and memorizing and hitting build order timings, and too little is focused on creativity/diversity in build strategy and micro skill.
I think you haven’t experienced what it’s like to enjoy it.
Think about a jazz trio improvising: they’ve got a very bare outline of the song they’re playing, then they each have musical ideas while they play, and they’re each listening to each other and responding to each others musical ideas, like a conversation. If the pianist has an idea of what they want to play next and it’s a really mechanically difficult thing to play, it’s not fun if they struggle to play it. However, if they’re playing within their ability level, then the greater mechanical difficulty is actually more satisfying to play. Playing it smoothly and beautifully and perfectly in time feels really great. Playing something that is mechanically easy can also make for good music, but it lacks a dimension of satisfaction.
Of course, the music is what’s most important, so the mechanics support the music. StarCraft is similar this way: you have a strategy that is flexible and subject to improvisation, you’ve got a wide range of mechanical difficulty but you’re not forced to take on more than you’re comfortable with, and ultimately the strategy is what’s most important.
Now, some people will take an excellent jazz performance recording and painstakingly transcribe it note for note, and then attempt to play it while lacking the mechanics to play it beautifully, and they'll play it without the context within which it was originally improvised.
That is how a lot of people play StarCraft: they poorly imitate strategies they don’t understand that require mechanics far beyond them. It stresses them out and it’s dissatisfying. That's not the game's fault! That's not really playing the game any more than someone copying a jazz performance note-for-note is playing jazz.
The fact is it’s difficult to play well. It’s difficult in more dimensions that most other games. Removing those dimensions would remove its character, its identity.
I agree it can be improved in certain ways. But the simple idea that people have of identifying this or that mundane task and saying let’s just remove those so that a higher percentage of tasks are meaningful, that’s crazy. Doing the tasks is supposed to be satisfying, like a fidget spinner or something. If I have the musical idea to arpeggiate a chord up 3 octaves, I want to actually push down each key and hear the note sing out when I do that physical action. The “modernize RTS” crowd wants to take away my many hours of practicing how to play arpeggios beautifully and give me an “auto arpeggio” button to push, because apparently the only worthwhile part of the process is having the idea of playing an arpeggio. Naw. Let me play it. It's more fun to actually play it. It's not only more fun, it's an entirely different experience, as different as listening to music versus playing music.
When I say I want successors to StarCraft to remain mechanically difficult, that is what I'm talking about: the marrying of mechanical difficulty and strategy.
When we look at how clunky BW is and continue the music/piano analogy, I think BW is like playing on a shitty piano. No one had ever played a piano before so playing it at all was an incredible experience. But some of the keys were sticky or really heavy to press, so it was exceedingly difficult to play smoothly and beautifully. So things like improving the pathfinding make sense to me. When an SCV is told to build something, it should reliably and promptly go build it. Things like that.
But people come to the StarCraft community, talking about what's wrong with StarCraft and what they want from future RTS, and they take this idea too far.
Specifically, the idea that any action that is "mindless" should be removed from the game. Or worse yet, any action that is both difficult to master and is essential to executing a strategy should be made easier to master, so that people with limited mechanical ability still have maximum strategic options. Unfortunately, that's just not what kind of game it is. The better your mechanics, the more possibilities open up to you.
If you don’t want to learn hard things, then play at a beginner level forever. It can be fun too. Just like easy to play music can be nice to listen to. It's also satisfying to play if that's where your skill level is at. Or don't play the ranked ladder. RTS is also campaigns, co-op, etc. A lot of the people making the new RTS's know how special a mechanically difficult 1v1 ladder is so they're keeping it that way. And for the players who don't know how to enjoy it, they're making other game modes and content. Like in Stormgate, I believe the plan is for 3v3 to be a different game than 1v1. Like 3v3 could have heroes and 1v1 won't. Obviously there will be a lot of overlap, but I think there'll be less multitasking and macro in 3v3, and more micro and coordination with teammates. And then there's co-op too.
Or just play a different RTS, far away from the successors to StarCraft. Or a different genre. IDK.
Don't worry, no one's going to take SC2 away from you Also, people aren't coming to the Starcraft community to trash the game, remember this is a thread in response to David Kim's thinking on the subject...
For context though, I'm a gamer in my 40's, been playing RTS since the original C&C. I enjoy RTS a lot, and SC2 I feel is the best title (of all the ones I've played at least). I've also played every other genre of game, both tabletop and digital.
The fact that you think SC2 is like Jazz is interesting. It makes me think maybe you haven't played too many other genres of games. I might say some procedural-generated FPS and isometric action and rogue-likes--maybe some MOBAs and RPGs--are a better analogy to jazz. Lots of adaptation and improvisation required, lots of build or gamestate diversity, an incredible amount of what I think you are referring to as "mechanical" skill. Think games like Elden Ring and Breathe of the Wild for doing whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want, as long as you have the talent and skill to pull it off.
SC2 is maybe more like techno or house, and specifically producing and mixing it. Plenty of variation but mostly a lot of remixing and recycling of similar sounds, sequences, beats and structures within pretty tight time-signature and BPM constraints. But get your beatmatching, track selection, and mixing right, and it'll sound and feel dang good. In SC2, not a lot of flexibility in optimal build options or unit compositions within specific match-ups. Metas get recycled, but are mostly stable unless and until units are dramatically patched or reworked.
It's not so much that I don't like doing mechanically hard things, but you're right I'm not game for incorporating a bunch of mindless, unnecessary tasks when unit micro and army control in RTS is already probably the most mechanically taxing thing in all of digital gaming. I get that you like playing with fidget toys, but maybe our RTS titles can have more strategic and tactical depth?
On September 30 2023 01:20 Telephone wrote: Beautiful post, NonY. That's exactly how I feel about it too. A friend of mine has brought up those quibbles with the game before and I was unable to eloquently describe why I didn't want Starcraft to be an auto battler.
When the elite pros are calling it a coin flip or rock, paper, scissors, maybe that's a sign that some modernization might be needed...
On September 30 2023 00:09 Harris1st wrote: If I remember correctly, AoE4 had a quite diverse mappool with the problem that on some maps there was one clearly favored race. Risky business. To the FPS idea: I think we discusses this in the Stormgate thread already. There are quite a few games that do this sort of thing and they are not very known / successful from an esport pov To the build order "problem": In CS:GO you have to know and remember multiple nade spots and timings on each map. Not much difference to remembering builds orders honestly. I really don't see this as a problem at all personally.
I don't wanna badmouth your ideas, just giving some perspective. You go about this openminded and I really like that
Fair enough. Hard to say sometimes whether these ideas are inherently flawed versus not being executed properly. For example, Marvel Snap has over a hundred locations, which then requires some improvisation, adaptation, and creativity in the play. But some are clearly favorited for certain decks, creating the build choice win problem. They account for this by making games very short and allowing you to concede to lose fewer ELO points that you would if you were defeated. FWIW, I'd say SC2 already has a higher % of build-order wins than I'd want, especially when so many professional matches are Bo3.
Literally every game requires some kind of recall and pattern-recognition/memorization, of course, but familiarizing yourself with and remembering terrain requirements in CS:GO is simply not the same thing as all the unit production, building construction, worker rerouting, unit rallying, upgrades, etc. that you need to remember/check every 20-odd seconds. Not to mention all the screen-switching and extra keyboard and mouse inputs. When people create custom timers to remember to do stuff, your game is officially on another level...
On September 30 2023 01:20 Telephone wrote: Beautiful post, NonY. That's exactly how I feel about it too. A friend of mine has brought up those quibbles with the game before and I was unable to eloquently describe why I didn't want Starcraft to be an auto battler.
When the elite pros are calling it a coin flip or rock, paper, scissors, maybe that's a sign that some modernization might be needed...
Pros have been calling that since forever, but when the coin flips or rock beats the scissors you definitively have a 1-0 score. In reality they're full of it and situations have advantages and disadvantages, where you made a sacrifice somewhere else got a benefit up until the point where you mess up beyond the build order but in tactics. If you go for the earlier lings, sacrificing economy, you still have units on the field, that have their own ability to attack and can scout for information, meaning you can recover in economy during that time if you choose, but if you launch those lings into a full wall off and lose all of them, you've now lost your advantage and fully droning is risky. The game wasn't over because of the build order, but because of your poor use of the advantage you had. This applies across the board if strategies were simply coin flips or rock paper scissors, then nobody would ever recover, and the second you scouted that your opponent had the better build order you would just GG and go next. And beyond that your choice in picking a strategy that is inferior in some with little to no recovery accross the board was a risk you took, you chose to flip a coin when there were options for a well developed match giving you multiple situations to take advantage of and games shouldn't be balanced around you taking a risk and it not working out.
On September 30 2023 01:20 Telephone wrote: Beautiful post, NonY. That's exactly how I feel about it too. A friend of mine has brought up those quibbles with the game before and I was unable to eloquently describe why I didn't want Starcraft to be an auto battler.
When the elite pros are calling it a coin flip or rock, paper, scissors, maybe that's a sign that some modernization might be needed...
Pros have been calling that since forever, but when the coin flips or rock beats the scissors you definitively have a 1-0 score. In reality they're full of it and situations have advantages and disadvantages, where you made a sacrifice somewhere else got a benefit up until the point where you mess up beyond the build order but in tactics. If you go for the earlier lings, sacrificing economy, you still have units on the field, that have their own ability to attack and can scout for information, meaning you can recover in economy during that time if you choose, but if you launch those lings into a full wall off and lose all of them, you've now lost your advantage and fully droning is risky. The game wasn't over because of the build order, but because of your poor use of the advantage you had. This applies across the board if strategies were simply coin flips or rock paper scissors, then nobody would ever recover, and the second you scouted that your opponent had the better build order you would just GG and go next. And beyond that your choice in picking a strategy that is inferior in some with little to no recovery accross the board was a risk you took, you chose to flip a coin when there were options for a well developed match giving you multiple situations to take advantage of and games shouldn't be balanced around you taking a risk and it not working out.
The pros are full of it? Mostly they've been saying this in mirror match-ups like ZvZ so you can't even attribute this to disingenuous balance whine. If you don't think there are build order wins in SC2, I'm not really sure what to say. The reason pros don't just GG post-scout is that there's always a 2% chance that the opponent will screw up the follow-up and in tournament play you're often going to play it out especially if you're on your last life. But then again you sometimes do actually see an immediate GG, especially in a Bo5 or Bo7.
The thing is, the rock, paper, scissors dynamic isn't necessarily an awful thing in strategy games. It'll be inherent in literally any game in which there is some form of hidden information. Even is supposedly open information games like chess, you can argue that rock, paper, scissors is at play if you pick an opening line that your opponent happens to not have looked at recently enough. What you need to do with games that have have high build order loss variance is have tournament formats that allow for longer series or higher numbers of games (round robin or swiss formats, for example) to smooth out that variance. Losing game 1 to a build order loss in a Bo3 with your tourney life on the line is really brutal.
Jesus, what am I even reading. I don't even know what points you're trying to argue at this point, rwala. Obviously you enjoy the discussion, however you're (possibly subconsciously) not pushing the discussion forward and are just randomly picking points from various posts to attempt to discredit their points with your own opinion. Stop being a lil debate bro.
What a tiresome thread. Should've known when there's 12 pages going on about a quote from 2021 with no further substance.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
I think you're missing the point, actually.
That attention demand and being dragged in multiple directions- how you manage it yourself and exploit it in your opponent- is part of the strategy. Not just hitting timings, mixing unit compositions and picking spots to fight. It isn't arbitrary, it's foundational.
And if anything, removing it makes it more like chess.
On September 26 2023 05:00 robopork wrote: I suck at these games but doesn't reducing the demands of attention and management affect the strategy?
Can we actually get that cream out of the coffee?
Sure, and having players play hungry, sleep deprived, and balancing on one foot in a sauna blaring a cacophony of noise would also impact the strategy. The thing is when you equate strategy and tactics with mindless task management you start to lose the heart of what strategy and tactics is all about. I’m not trying to be harsh, I do think a lot of folks in the community enjoy the mundane process of grinding out macro cycles and somehow find it soothing or comforting or whatever. But it really has nothing to do with strategy.
But it’s the character that RTS games developed nonetheless. Now if you want to remove that character to make some other kind of RTS game, that’s fine. But BW alone has had so much success and loyalty that it’s absurd to think that we just throw away this type of game forever. At least one of these successors needs to honor the mechanics of playing BW.
Fans of strategy games like to make arguments that since “strategy” is in the name of the category they’re in, we must prioritize it over everything else. Nonsense. It’s virtually impossible to have a contest or competition without strategy being present, whether it’s arm wrestling or a foot race or soccer or an FPS or whatever. Everything has strategy in it and “strategy games” are free to feature skills other than strategy.
RTS particularly is well suited for featuring non-strategy skills, since removing the turn-based aspect and introducing the skill of using a mouse and keyboard in real time invites the exact difficulty that you now suggest we de-emphasize.
So just like playing soccer requires you to be able to run a bit, and being able to run really well is a huge advantage in soccer, so it goes with mechanics in RTS’s like BW and its successors. Mundane tasks are inextricably tied to the enjoyment of the flashier parts of the game. You can’t remove them and just keep the “fun stuff” without changing the entire nature of the game.
There’s room in the world for both kinds of games imo. I’m just tired of people attacking this aspect of BW and its successors like it’s a fault that can be fixed or optimized by modern game devs. Leave us alone lol
I meant that as kind of an absurd example, but thanks for validating that there's a segment of the community willing to admit that RTS in some respects reduces to this kind of silliness. I love BW and grew up playing it, but there's no question it's outdated in a number of ways. I also love Command & Conquer, BW fixed a lot of the issues in that franchise, and yet there's a solid community still dedicated to C&C. No one is suggesting we get rid of these titles, and I didn't say strategy needs to be prioritized over everything else (I'm not trying to recreate chess or go here). In fact if you read my last comment you'll see that I think RTS can learn from some of the mechanics of what makes FPS fun from a speed, responsiveness, and dexterity skill perspective. SC2 improved on BW by making the units faster and more responsive, with better pathfinding and AI. But if you think a memory skill check is critical to the essence of RTS, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on that.
It's the fate of every non-turn based video game. Today gamers are very used to min maxing every game they play. Even in todays most popular and accessible Chess variants (with faster time controls) mechanical speed and accuracy will give you significant advantages.
Truth is, in your average game this isn't much to worry about. Obviously at a higher level of competition the advantages of such abilities will have a larger impact.
For many years, performing these type of tasks in a most optimal manner were hardly game changing in competitive BW. The foreign scene had a lot of many lower apm players who excelled due to strategical and tactical superiority (Fisheye, Nazgul). Even Savior, one of the most influential players of all time, had relatively low APM but superior strategy and tactical awareness compared to his peers.
If minimizing this is amongst your core design ideas, I think you're focusing on the wrong things and will likely put you at a higher risk of creating a bland game.
I think you're missing the point. I don't have an issue with min-maxing or optimization in gameplay, both of which imply choice. I do have an issue with mindless task management. Again, lots to be learned from what makes FPS fun and interesting. Almost entirely about mechanical speed, accuracy, and precision, and yet almost every input has significant tactical, if not strategic, depth. Those devs aren't requiring lots of pointless inputs with little-to-no tactical or strategic value just to tax executive functions.
The design considerations and conversations related to chess are significantly more complicated, and extend way beyond whether speed confers an edge in the shortest time controls (clearly it does, though I watch and play a decent amount of bullet chess, and I'd say the pre-moving meta is even more important). The bigger critique of chess is that over hundreds of years worth of analyzed games and especially with the advent of powerful engines, the games at the highest levels often reduce down to which player has a better memory of all the various lines of theory in whatever opening happens to be played in a particular game. One player will often test another's knowledge of the specific line chosen, and if the other player accurately refutes, they'll just agree to a draw. It was the reason Bobby Fischer came to hate standard chess and invented a randomized variant, and it's also a significant reason why Magnus Carlsen abdicated the thrown. Ironically, Magnus believes a higher quantity of games at shorter time controls is necessary to be able to fairly evaluate skill. In any event, most designers would acknowledge that chess is not a very good game from a design perspective, and not something you'd really want to be modeling modern strategy games on.
I think you're missing the point, actually.
That attention demand and being dragged in multiple directions- how you manage it yourself and exploit it in your opponent- is part of the strategy. Not just hitting timings, mixing unit compositions and picking spots to fight. It isn't arbitrary, it's foundational.
And if anything, removing it makes it more like chess.
... I suppose if I had to sum up the way I feel about modern RTS, it would be that too much of the attention and executive function tax is drawn onto various aspects of hitting macro cycles and memorizing and hitting build order timings, and too little is focused on creativity/diversity in build strategy and micro skill. ... I get that this is personal gaming preference as much as anything, and I still really like SC2 and grew up on all the foundational RTS titles, but it does feel like there's an RTS out there that's better for my playstyle.
Command and Conquer Red Alert 3. 1 Harvester Automatically Spawns from the Resource Gathering Hub. 1 Harverster Per Resource Node. Set it and forget it. 1 Resource.
SC2's Chris Morten employed many of the co-op ideas built in RA3.
I mean if you find it tiresome, maybe don't tire yourself out by engaging? I ignore all the dozens of pages of GOAT discussions that pop up every once in a while because I find it tiresome and boring. It's not that hard, try it Feels a little like you're just going out of your way Smorrie to be mean. I think I've added some thoughtful and interesting points to consider (at least some others have acknowledged as much). But if you don't, that's cool. I've also said some of this is just preference (i.e. there's no objective truth). I'm responding to specific points and enjoying the back and forth, but certainly not trying to discredit anyone who has a different perspective.
On September 30 2023 04:40 rwala wrote: I mean if you find it tiresome, maybe don't tire yourself out by engaging? I ignore all the dozens of pages of GOAT discussions that pop up every once in a while because I find it tiresome and boring. It's not that hard, try it Feels a little like you're just going out of your way Smorrie to be mean. I think I've added some thoughtful and interesting points to consider (at least some others have acknowledged as much). But if you don't, that's cool. I've also said some of this is just preference (i.e. there's no objective truth). I'm responding to specific points and enjoying the back and forth, but certainly not trying to discredit anyone who has a different perspective.
I read up on the thread and decided my brain hurt too much trying to comprehend what points you are actually trying to make, even though you've been adding the most posts to the thread.
Since you've classified my earlier response as 'mean', I guess it's at least fair to you to at least elaborate...
Nony's writing a 2 page prose in an attempt to provide different perspectives, since you're ignoring arguments that have been provided to you already. You then at random pick and choose some of his metaphors to argue something different. You then continue by misquoting him, showing you've made little effort to actually read and understand the thoughts he shared. In between there you find some room to attempt to discredit him by saying he probably hasn't played too many other games - based on what exactly?
You told me before 'I'm misunderstanding the point' and then side-step into a different discussion, even though I challenged you exactly on the point you originally made.
Your response to Wintex goes all over the place, but is ultimately brought down to discrediting his opinion.
I don't even know why you're trying to pick a fight with Telephone, putting out the bait with a random statement.
The only thing I've gathered through all of it, is that you don't like a lot of BW's mechanics. You're passed 40 and feel like there are plenty of games that have superior game design, making BW outdated. Good thing, that means there are plenty of other games for you to enjoy! You might want to look into RTT (real time tactics) games, they tend to keep away from macro management.
Something I wanted to call you out on, in case you're not realizing this yourself.
That said, I'll leave you all to it! Maybe the thread can stay alive until there actually is something substantial released by Uncapped Games.
I think it's very telling when people argue that modern games are "too mechanical and repetitive" or whatever. I find them all to be really easy on that front. Macro has been dumbed down to an insane degree yet you still have people bitching. And then they have the gall to argue the point objectively, saying games -should- be less mechanical.
It's not as if the game studios are fighting each other to make the next Brood War, like it's that mall scene from Jingle All The Way. Imo it'd be great if a studio found the balls to make a really mechanical game again, but they all know 95% of consumers slide home on a stream of their own feces while playing mobile games and autobattlers. And yet you still see people up in arms about the 1% chance that another challenging game could hit the market sometime in the next 50 years. Like good lord. You have literally thousands of games to choose from that aren't mechanical. Let the bros have 1 nutbusting RTS every 30 years. God forbid.
On September 30 2023 04:40 rwala wrote: I mean if you find it tiresome, maybe don't tire yourself out by engaging? I ignore all the dozens of pages of GOAT discussions that pop up every once in a while because I find it tiresome and boring. It's not that hard, try it Feels a little like you're just going out of your way Smorrie to be mean. I think I've added some thoughtful and interesting points to consider (at least some others have acknowledged as much). But if you don't, that's cool. I've also said some of this is just preference (i.e. there's no objective truth). I'm responding to specific points and enjoying the back and forth, but certainly not trying to discredit anyone who has a different perspective.
I read up on the thread and decided my brain hurt too much trying to comprehend what points you are actually trying to make, even though you've been adding the most posts to the thread.
Since you've classified my earlier response as 'mean', I guess it's at least fair to you to at least elaborate...
Nony's writing a 2 page prose in an attempt to provide different perspectives, since you're ignoring arguments that have been provided to you already. You then at random pick and choose some of his metaphors to argue something different. You then continue by misquoting him, showing you've made little effort to actually read and understand the thoughts he shared. In between there you find some room to attempt to discredit him by saying he probably hasn't played too many other games - based on what exactly?
You told me before 'I'm misunderstanding the point' and then side-step into a different discussion, even though I challenged you exactly on the point you originally made.
Your response to Wintex goes all over the place, but is ultimately brought down to discrediting his opinion.
I don't even know why you're trying to pick a fight with Telephone, putting out the bait with a random statement.
The only thing I've gathered through all of it, is that you don't like a lot of BW's mechanics. You're passed 40 and feel like there are plenty of games that have superior game design, making BW outdated. Good thing, that means there are plenty of other games for you to enjoy! You might want to look into RTT (real time tactics) games, they tend to keep away from macro management.
Something I wanted to call you out on, in case you're not realizing this yourself.
That said, I'll leave you all to it! Maybe the thread can stay alive until there actually is something substantial released by Uncapped Games.
U mad bro? This is a discussion thread in a video game forum, there's really no need to get all aggro.
For someone who is tired and upset, you sure do have a lot of energy to read all my responses and figure out how to mischaracterize them. But if you'd actually read and understood them, you'd know I enjoy RTS and am just offering some thoughts on ways it could be improved (at least for me).
RTT is great, but doesn't scratch the same itch. The reason that RTS is fun is that it's the tactical play of armies and units battling coupled with the strategic play associated primarily with engine-building and resource-management gameplay mechanisms. I just don't agree that the strategic play component needs to be so much of a memory skill check or include so much task management and execution. We are not asking to turn RTS into another genre, we are asking for, at minimum, a continuation of the quality of life improvements that SC2 made over BW with respect to AI, pathfinding, action programming, and automation that allows players to focus more on strategic decisionmaking, battle tactics, and unit micro. I agree that BW's design "quirks" like being unable to group buildings allow for greater mechanical skill differentiation, but so would disallowing unit grouping, pathfinding, and rally points, all of which automate or consolidate what would otherwise need to be many individually-executed actions. Somehow I don't hear BW purists complain about these action execution shortcuts. Alas, the original sin lies with BW itself...
Even with its flaws, BW is a great game, and SC2 is even better in my opinion. I think there will likely be future RTS titles that are even better, for all the reasons I and many others in this thread have explained (not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding). There's really no reason to get triggered just because some people might think your favorite game could be better.
On September 30 2023 09:19 RogerChillingworth wrote: I think it's very telling when people argue that modern games are "too mechanical and repetitive" or whatever. I find them all to be really easy on that front. Macro has been dumbed down to an insane degree yet you still have people bitching. And then they have the gall to argue the point objectively, saying games -should- be less mechanical.
It's not as if the game studios are fighting each other to make the next Brood War, like it's that mall scene from Jingle All The Way. Imo it'd be great if a studio found the balls to make a really mechanical game again, but they all know 95% of consumers slide home on a stream of their own feces while playing mobile games and autobattlers. And yet you still see people up in arms about the 1% chance that another challenging game could hit the market sometime in the next 50 years. Like good lord. You have literally thousands of games to choose from that aren't mechanical. Let the bros have 1 nutbusting RTS every 30 years. God forbid.
No need to wait, you can bust yer nuts on DDR, much more mechanically challenging than BW, or better yet play BW and DDR simultaneously for a real challenge.
It's not surprising to see people argue against 'next gen' rts design in here, as this is a starcraft forum and people obviously are biased towards the starcraft franchise when it comes to game design. I just wish people would look a little beyond their own biases and not assume that just because people are asking for certain tasks to be streamlined more (mostly inputs regarding macro, which generally are simply efficient or not, not a whole lot of self-expression going on there), that people ask for "easy" games. You could make every action requring two inputs for bw / sc2, it would be mechanically harder, would that be a positive? I'd think most reasonable answers would be: No. That mechanical inputs are fun, that mastering something challenging can be satisfying, well yeah ofc, but you would still have these elements through other inputs, noone is asking for an auto battler here, people just want to move the majority of input actions into other elements, elements which are more prone to self-expression / creativity, which are more dynamic, more directly linked to the pvp aspect of the game. People want to make the game more like a jazz improv, not less so.
David Kim eh? It is interesting to see how few games Blizzard's top people have cranked out since leaving ATVI. Its interesting to see the direction Destiny2 has gone since leaving ATVI as well.
Overall, I'd say ATVI is a pretty damn good publisher relative to the other giant megacorp publishers. In general though , massive corps are total scum. The top levels of video game industry have always been absolute complete and total scum since its birth in NA in the 70s. M$ might be the only exception to that. The guy making Pac-man was paid $30,000. The game made $1.1 Billion , NOT inflation adjusted, in 1980.
It's cool to see that RTS still brings in enough cash to attract a top notch talent like David Kim.
On September 30 2023 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: I just wish people would look a little beyond their own biases and not assume that just because people are asking for certain tasks to be streamlined more (mostly inputs regarding macro, which generally are simply efficient or not, not a whole lot of self-expression going on there), that people ask for "easy" games. You could make every action requring two inputs for bw / sc2, it would be mechanically harder, would that be a positive? I'd think most reasonable answers would be: No. That mechanical inputs are fun, that mastering something challenging can be satisfying, well yeah ofc, but you would still have these elements through other inputs, noone is asking for an auto battler here
Good points. As far as internal base housekeeping chores go in an RTS game... the exact opposite bias occurs in the C&C forums. For me SC2 comes closest to the perfect blend of micro and internal base macro decision making. C&C games have too little and Brood War has too much.
In these forums people seem to lose sight of the fact that they are mere consumers. THe consumer can choose between several less than perfect products. The consumer will never get the absolute perfect recipe they want. For me, RA3, Brood War, and SC2 come closest to perfection. So those are the RTSs I've played the most over the years. I have misgivings about all 3 games, however, they are all so much fun I don't much care. When I get bored of these 3 games I just do something else as Nony advised in his post.
Grubby famously said :"just play until you get bored then do something else... getting angry is a waste of energy."
On September 30 2023 02:31 rwala wrote: For context though, I'm a gamer in my 40's, been playing RTS since the original C&C. I enjoy RTS a lot, and SC2 I feel is the best title (of all the ones I've played at least). I've also played every other genre of game, both tabletop and digital.
cool, i'm 36 and i played Intellivision Sea Battle, Intellivision Utopia, EA NHL '94, and M.U.L.E. with my older relatives and a couple of university tutorial assistants. Experiencing those action/strategy titles with older people was definitely great. This forum seems age locked around 35.
It is really fascinating to see the rabid, timeless fan bases that form around action//strategy titles including the RTS genre. Other types of games have players come-and-go in weeks or months.
On September 30 2023 01:20 Telephone wrote: Beautiful post, NonY. That's exactly how I feel about it too. A friend of mine has brought up those quibbles with the game before and I was unable to eloquently describe why I didn't want Starcraft to be an auto battler.
When the elite pros are calling it a coin flip or rock, paper, scissors, maybe that's a sign that some modernization might be needed...
The "elite pros" opinion should not matter much to people who love the game "as is". Texas Hold'em creates many coin flip situations that allows a weaker player frequently to defeat a better player. Emotionally weak will top pros like Phil Hellmuth cry about losing when the odds are 4:1 in his favour. More mature top poker pros see this luck as part of what attracts the masses. They tolerate it and play a larger volume of games to make up for the luck. Without the masses enjoying the game and feeding the system tonnes of cash there is no industry.
Perhaps the SC2 "top pros" should be criticizing the competitive event structure rather than the game itself? Whether its Texas Holdem or SC2 ... the game itself ain't changing.
Build-order wins aren't what's exciting about Starcraft. It's the fact that the game can end at pretty much any moment. It's like a dance on fire, and one misstep might mean death. Without macro mechanics, that changes because attention is more focused on the battles.
On September 30 2023 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: It's not surprising to see people argue against 'next gen' rts design in here, as this is a starcraft forum and people obviously are biased towards the starcraft franchise when it comes to game design. I just wish people would look a little beyond their own biases and not assume that just because people are asking for certain tasks to be streamlined more (mostly inputs regarding macro, which generally are simply efficient or not, not a whole lot of self-expression going on there), that people ask for "easy" games. You could make every action requring two inputs for bw / sc2, it would be mechanically harder, would that be a positive? I'd think most reasonable answers would be: No. That mechanical inputs are fun, that mastering something challenging can be satisfying, well yeah ofc, but you would still have these elements through other inputs, noone is asking for an auto battler here, people just want to move the majority of input actions into other elements, elements which are more prone to self-expression / creativity, which are more dynamic, more directly linked to the pvp aspect of the game. People want to make the game more like a jazz improv, not less so.
I personally don't mind this, Viper, but I think there is a lot of merit to retaining the non pvp actions while also ramping up the pvp actions as well. I think some were arguing specifically on behalf of keeping some depth to macro, which is a nice perspective.
For me it's about having a game where one player can easily show dominance over another, if their skills in one area are markedly superior. Designing it in such a way where everyone pretty much has decent macro, for instance, despite a wide skill discrepancy, would be unfortunate.
On September 30 2023 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: It's not surprising to see people argue against 'next gen' rts design in here, as this is a starcraft forum and people obviously are biased towards the starcraft franchise when it comes to game design. I just wish people would look a little beyond their own biases and not assume that just because people are asking for certain tasks to be streamlined more (mostly inputs regarding macro, which generally are simply efficient or not, not a whole lot of self-expression going on there), that people ask for "easy" games. You could make every action requring two inputs for bw / sc2, it would be mechanically harder, would that be a positive? I'd think most reasonable answers would be: No. That mechanical inputs are fun, that mastering something challenging can be satisfying, well yeah ofc, but you would still have these elements through other inputs, noone is asking for an auto battler here, people just want to move the majority of input actions into other elements, elements which are more prone to self-expression / creativity, which are more dynamic, more directly linked to the pvp aspect of the game. People want to make the game more like a jazz improv, not less so.
I personally don't mind this, Viper, but I think there is a lot of merit to retaining the non pvp actions while also ramping up the pvp actions as well. I think some were arguing specifically on behalf of keeping some depth to macro, which is a nice perspective.
For me it's about having a game where one player can easily show dominance over another, if their skills in one area are markedly superior. Designing it in such a way where everyone pretty much has decent macro, for instance, despite a wide skill discrepancy, would be unfortunate.
Well the way i see it is that a game has a certain balance there, we can up the total actions while we get better (so become faster, more efficient), but the game itself generally dictates a certain importance. Generally i'd say starcraft falls into the area where macro is way, way, way more important than micro if you want to get better at the game (so win more, vs higher level players). New players are taught to rather focus on macro and a move, because this is the part of the game which truly matters for most players if they want to climb the ranks. I personally think that's questionable game design, especially because many of these actions are pretty uninteresting, don't allow the player in question to express much, they outright take away from people trying to generate interactions with the enemy. This ofc becomes less and less an issue the "better" the player is, on high level the balance between macro and micro / unit control is certainly different than it is for 99% of the playerbase, but the game design itself favors one over the other.
I personally don't really see the value in a need for macro being an important deciding factor, i think the most interesting part of macro is the decisions behind it, what you want to make / research and why. But not necessarily if you were able to do it as efficient as possible. On the other hand i think it is pretty interesting to see players control their units more efficiently, mostly because there typically is a real interaction going on with the enemy of some sort. I'd rather have games try and shift the balance towards this skill expression, it is arguably more multi dimensional and probably also where most of the fun comes from for most people. This ofc means that this aspect of the game needs to be designed in a way where it allows people to invest many actions to have a more efficient / better outcome, this is the key (we could also add multitasking here, so making sure there are many things to do on the map). Is this hypothetical game somehow inferior because the inputs shifted more towards other elements compared to starcraft? (be it bw or sc2) I don't see why. In my mind i see a game which allows players to express themselves more, a high skill level, just with a different focus. Keep in mind that i am saying this while totally understanding the appeal of macro, i truly had fun to get in a certain rhythm when playing bw or sc2, there is some appeal there which is comparable to playing guitar hero or whatever, but when i think about it, i don't think these elements are needed, and you can get a similar satisfaction from unit control if it creates interesting dynamics.
It would be nice if they made an RTS where you could turn off/on the "auto-macro" or "auto-battler" in a game. Some people want to play with it, some people want to play without, seems reasonable to allow both options.
I would love to know what it's like to play STarcraft if my mechanics were as good as Flash. I would get crushed by people who know the game deeply, but at least I could focus on my strategy. At my beginner-ish level (D+ Iccup in 2009 who could occasionally take games off C-) it's hard to focus on strategy when I'm mechanically constrained. And if other people want to play hardcore Brood War-like games, great! Just toggle the auto-macroer off and host a game with that setting.
I love BW (never got into SC2 or any other game for that matter), but as an adult I really don't have the energy to devote to mechanics the way I used to -- I know that people want a sweet spot between "auto-battlers" and OG BroodWar, but for people who want that mechanically challenging game... there is still Brood War, and there is SC2 for a little bit less intensity. A new RTS should contribute something new.
Responding to people who might like Brood War but a touch less clunky; I think people can just mod SC1 to make e.g. SCV making buildings a smoother process, no need for a whole new RTS to smoothen out the kinks in brood war.
We talked a lot about RTS. I had an idea (probably not the first one). A FIFA-style RTS, managing a Starcraft team. The matches would be played as an autobattler, but there is a choice to also play the matches.
It would allow players to focus on strategy, use build-order presets and commands like expand to this base, and set up static defense and gas.
An alternate version could be a simple AI players that could be trained in certain aspects. Single-players would work as well as multiplayer and RPG skill trees (improve aspects like splitting marines or Oracle control). There are so many ways to make this a fun game.
On September 30 2023 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: It's not surprising to see people argue against 'next gen' rts design in here, as this is a starcraft forum and people obviously are biased towards the starcraft franchise when it comes to game design. I just wish people would look a little beyond their own biases and not assume that just because people are asking for certain tasks to be streamlined more (mostly inputs regarding macro, which generally are simply efficient or not, not a whole lot of self-expression going on there), that people ask for "easy" games. You could make every action requring two inputs for bw / sc2, it would be mechanically harder, would that be a positive? I'd think most reasonable answers would be: No. That mechanical inputs are fun, that mastering something challenging can be satisfying, well yeah ofc, but you would still have these elements through other inputs, noone is asking for an auto battler here, people just want to move the majority of input actions into other elements, elements which are more prone to self-expression / creativity, which are more dynamic, more directly linked to the pvp aspect of the game. People want to make the game more like a jazz improv, not less so.
Well said! The great thing is that Broodwar and SC2 I think are going to be around for quite a while longer. No new title can compete with the original quirks and magic, plus there’s always the nostalgia factor. The really interesting question to me is whether there’s enough of a player base for a strategy and tactics forward RTS or if instead we will see this genre lean even more heavily into task management a la Factorio and some of these other titles that deemphasize the strategy war game elements. No matter how much you streamline, by the very nature of simultaneously managing an economy, production, and army in real-time, RTS will have more of a cognitive tax than any other genre of game. The Souls-like games and some of the modern platformers and rogue-likes with permadeath have proven there is a solid player base for games that are really “hard” and “frustrating” and require an incredible amount of mastery. But even so, those games are just very different in how they play, and how it feels to play them. So we shall see!
I like some of the ideas Hildegard and SerpentFlame are suggesting. Tho since I’m personally interested in increasing the attention space to devote army tactics and unit micro not sure I’d be super interested in the auto battler idea.
Even tho I don’t agree, I like the way Day9 used to talk about this debate back in the day (his sports analogies were flawed tho). He was 100% on the pro-Broodwar/task management side, but he was also pretty honest about the fact that BW is primarily a task management game, not a strategy game…and that we shouldn’t try to make RTS into a game that is about “strategic decisions”. I remember in one video he explicitly said BW’s appeal is like Rock Band and in fact I’m convinced reading this thread and others like it that there’s a total hit on the horizon when some dev just owns this and full on incorporates rhythm game mechanics into RTS macro (if you think it’s too far a stretch, take a look at some of the successful rhythm game FPS mashups as of late).
If you want your game to feel like playing a rhythm game, I can totally get how you’d resist incorporating too much strategy or tactics. 99% of strategy games require you to stop and think while you’re playing the game, even if only once or twice in critical moments, and even if it’s only for a few seconds. That’s because the definition of strategy is making and adapting plans to fit different scenarios and it simply does take at least a couple seconds to make these kinds of strategic judgments. Even in games of bullet chess (60 seconds), the best players will take a few seconds, sometimes even 10 or more seconds, if the position is strategically critical and game-determinative (and the best players know which positions those are).
Obviously there’s no way you can do that in a real-time game, the opportunity cost is too high. But I’d love to see devs toy with ideas like pre-timed cease fires or maybe even cease fires by mutual consent in which both sides could stop and take stock of where things are in the game and adjust their strategy. Then the chaos can resume. Even if it’s only like 30 seconds once mid-game, can you imagine how much more strategic depth it would add to the game? The levels of mind games would be insane. I predict you’d see more interesting tech and comp switching, and more comebacks and interesting mid-game all-ins (rather than all these desperate worker pulls and all-ins once a player is already lost). Transistor is a nice real time tactics/isometric action RPG game that does this to pretty great effect, it would be interesting to see if it could be done well in an RTS context.
On September 30 2023 21:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote: David Kim eh? It is interesting to see how few games Blizzard's top people have cranked out since leaving ATVI. Its interesting to see the direction Destiny2 has gone since leaving ATVI as well.
Overall, I'd say ATVI is a pretty damn good publisher relative to the other giant megacorp publishers. In general though , massive corps are total scum. The top levels of video game industry have always been absolute complete and total scum since its birth in NA in the 70s. M$ might be the only exception to that. The guy making Pac-man was paid $30,000. The game made $1.1 Billion , NOT inflation adjusted, in 1980.
It's cool to see that RTS still brings in enough cash to attract a top notch talent like David Kim.
On September 30 2023 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: I just wish people would look a little beyond their own biases and not assume that just because people are asking for certain tasks to be streamlined more (mostly inputs regarding macro, which generally are simply efficient or not, not a whole lot of self-expression going on there), that people ask for "easy" games. You could make every action requring two inputs for bw / sc2, it would be mechanically harder, would that be a positive? I'd think most reasonable answers would be: No. That mechanical inputs are fun, that mastering something challenging can be satisfying, well yeah ofc, but you would still have these elements through other inputs, noone is asking for an auto battler here
Good points. As far as internal base housekeeping chores go in an RTS game... the exact opposite bias occurs in the C&C forums. For me SC2 comes closest to the perfect blend of micro and internal base macro decision making. C&C games have too little and Brood War has too much.
In these forums people seem to lose sight of the fact that they are mere consumers. THe consumer can choose between several less than perfect products. The consumer will never get the absolute perfect recipe they want. For me, RA3, Brood War, and SC2 come closest to perfection. So those are the RTSs I've played the most over the years. I have misgivings about all 3 games, however, they are all so much fun I don't much care. When I get bored of these 3 games I just do something else as Nony advised in his post.
Grubby famously said :"just play until you get bored then do something else... getting angry is a waste of energy."
On September 30 2023 02:31 rwala wrote: For context though, I'm a gamer in my 40's, been playing RTS since the original C&C. I enjoy RTS a lot, and SC2 I feel is the best title (of all the ones I've played at least). I've also played every other genre of game, both tabletop and digital.
cool, i'm 36 and i played Intellivision Sea Battle, Intellivision Utopia, EA NHL '94, and M.U.L.E. with my older relatives and a couple of university tutorial assistants. Experiencing those action/strategy titles with older people was definitely great. This forum seems age locked around 35.
It is really fascinating to see the rabid, timeless fan bases that form around action//strategy titles including the RTS genre. Other types of games have players come-and-go in weeks or months.
On September 30 2023 01:20 Telephone wrote: Beautiful post, NonY. That's exactly how I feel about it too. A friend of mine has brought up those quibbles with the game before and I was unable to eloquently describe why I didn't want Starcraft to be an auto battler.
When the elite pros are calling it a coin flip or rock, paper, scissors, maybe that's a sign that some modernization might be needed...
The "elite pros" opinion should not matter much to people who love the game "as is". Texas Hold'em creates many coin flip situations that allows a weaker player frequently to defeat a better player. Emotionally weak will top pros like Phil Hellmuth cry about losing when the odds are 4:1 in his favour. More mature top poker pros see this luck as part of what attracts the masses. They tolerate it and play a larger volume of games to make up for the luck. Without the masses enjoying the game and feeding the system tonnes of cash there is no industry.
Perhaps the SC2 "top pros" should be criticizing the competitive event structure rather than the game itself? Whether its Texas Holdem or SC2 ... the game itself ain't changing.
Interesting re: C&C. Thanks for sharing that. Good point re: poker, but I think the difference is that poker is ultimately a game of chance and RTS is ostensibly supposed to be "strategy" game with pretty much no RNG (other than spawn location and Terran worker build movement, as far as I know). In poker, you need to play a million hands to buy down your variance to 1BB/100 hands. I don't know how many games of SC you'd need to play to buy down your build-order loss variance to a reasonable rate, but it feels to me like these single-elimination Bo5 brackets in all the major tournaments don't really cut it.
In any event, I agree with you that it's not necessarily a problem for a strategy game to have "luck" such as these build-order wins, but the game rules and tournament formats need to reflect the level of variance. As I said in another post, Marvel Snap deals with this by making the games super short and allowing you to lose less ELO by conceding earlier in a match. Not the only way, but clever. Swiss tournament formats are also better at smoothing out variance, but much less exciting to watch in my opinion. Best of all would be to design the game intentionally so there are no (or very, very few) viable builds that are so diametrically opposed as to create build-order losses. It's okay to have early wins and losses, but in a strategy or tactics game you ideally want it to be based on an unscouted costly proxy or decision to go all-in, on spiraling damage from excellent/poor early unit micro, or from excellent/poor army tactics snowballing an early decisive battle.
Most of the strategic decisions in RTS games only work well because they are made under time pressure. A turn-based Starcraft wouldn't have nearly enough depth to be an interesting game.
Casters focus a lot on strategy, but my guess is (please correct me if I'm wrong) that most strategic decisions are either made before the start of the match or are preplanned reactions (if the opponent goes Mutalisk I build a Hydras).
Maybe NonY could tell us about that, how many actual strategic decisions does a professional player make per match on average?
On October 04 2023 22:28 Hildegard wrote: Most of the strategic decisions in RTS games only work well because they are made under time pressure. A turn-based Starcraft wouldn't have nearly enough depth to be an interesting game.
Casters focus a lot on strategy, but my guess is (please correct me if I'm wrong) that most strategic decisions are either made before the start of the match or are preplanned reactions (if the opponent goes Mutalisk I build a Hydras).
Maybe NonY could tell us about that, how many actual strategic decisions does a professional player make per match on average?
I imagine if both players play a known standard, pretty much every decision buildings / unit wise is predetermined and the only real strategic decision is when and how to engage. As soon as one player deviates from the standard (hidden expo, fowards expo with gold/ rich gas, cheese, all-in) all the decisions have to be made on the fly, but also with somewhat predetermined pre-sets. For a pro player there are very few situations that are new and never before experienced so that there has to made a new never before made reaction/ decision
I personally love RTS games but I never managed to find anything that got close to Starcraft 1 (that includes Starcraft 2 in my book).
I played Total War Shogun 1, 2, Warhammer. I played Seven Kingdoms (Kinda liked this one). Age of Empires. Dawn Of War 2. Dune 2000 Supreme Commander
And probably more that I don't recall right now. So while i really do NOT expect David to be able to make soemthing revolutionary, I will be happy if he does.
On October 04 2023 22:28 Hildegard wrote: Most of the strategic decisions in RTS games only work well because they are made under time pressure. A turn-based Starcraft wouldn't have nearly enough depth to be an interesting game.
Casters focus a lot on strategy, but my guess is (please correct me if I'm wrong) that most strategic decisions are either made before the start of the match or are preplanned reactions (if the opponent goes Mutalisk I build a Hydras).
Maybe NonY could tell us about that, how many actual strategic decisions does a professional player make per match on average?
Part of the issue is that I don't know that there is a consensus within this thread on what constitutes a "strategic decision." Generally speaking, in government, business, or military affairs, strategy is developing a plan to achieve a goal, whereas tactics are the actions for implementing that plan and operations are how you execute those actions. In SC, the strategy is studying your opponent and tailoring your builds based on how you think your respective strengths/weaknesses match up, deciding when to save versus use certain builds (within a series or tournament), preparing contingency plans to account for various in-game scenarios, and evaluating and adapting your plan in game if you encounter a scenario you didn't anticipate or plan for. The decisions you make both with your army (micro) and your economy (macro) are mostly tactics given the way the game is designed, and how you execute those actions (mechanics) are your operations. A lot of folks in this thread are conflating mechanics with macro, but in any event it's clear that what many of them want is RTS to be primarily about skill in mechanics/operations versus strategy and tactics.
I think you're right that most of the "strategic" decisions are pre-made or pre-planned, although the top level players are evaluating and adapting their game plan in real time for sure. For example, whenever you see a pro give up a base, make a tech switch, or go for a spontaneous all-in, multiple-expand, hidden base, or base trade, these are really interesting strategic decisions based off of a ton of game knowledge. The thing is, even at the pro level, these in-game, strategy-level decisions have relatively high blunder rates and more often than not end up being desperate attempts to salvage a lost position. They could be high EV strategic decisions in many other positions, but the time and attention required to properly evaluate all the information and variables is too costly when you're already taxed to the max.
I don't think the answer is to turn Starcraft into a turn-based game, though I also don't agree that such a game would be uninteresting and lack depth (fun fact: it actually exists as a tabletop game, and it's interesting and has a lot of depth). The answer might be for future RTS titles to embrace and expand the quality of life improvements discussed in this thread. But I'd go further and advocate for pauses or at least ebbs and flows built into the game so there would be times where it would not be so costly if you devoted your attention to evaluating your position and adapting your strategy.
I know BW purists cringe at such ideas. Day9 mocks this kind of stuff in his epic defense of Broodwar where he seems to think Starcraft is like sports--American football in particular--in that it's primarily about physical skill, and only secondarily about strategy. What I don't think he fully appreciates is how much American football involves pausing and thinking. You are literally allowed to pause after every play, in addition to each quarter, each timeout, each foul. His other analogy--golf--is even worse in that it's straight up a turn-based game. Even in sports that are realtime AF, like football/soccer, there's plenty of pausing.
In fact, I'm not aware of any realtime, skill-based strategy game or sport that does not allow you to stop and think...either with formal pauses in the game or gameplay dynamics and mechanisms that allow you to occasionally slow down and think while you're playing. That's not a bug, it's a feature. And it's not just to allow some space to think, but also to rest and recover so players can perform at something close to their skill ceiling. Would these games/sports be "harder" if there were no pauses and if the coaches had to play while making these decisions? Yes. Would they be better? I don't think so...
Today I watched Artosis play the game. Sadly, his camera placement was so bad that too much information wasn't accessible to me. Can someone recommend vods with better camera placement and, ideally, some commentary?
New job posting just got listed today for a ' Senior Community Manager ' .. it reads basically like what David Kim was to StarCraft 2. This is really interesting because it seems like they are gearing up for something public soon. Their responsibilities include but are not limited to:
* Serve as an ambassador for the game and company at events providing the first voice the community may interact with * Work with influencers and content creators helping define effective relationship management * Help bridge the communication pathway for efficient feedback and actionable takeaways
I think in 2024 we definitely hear a lot about this game which has been tightly under the wraps, fingers crossed for 2023 still
Quick little update for you guys on the latest november posting. Haven't seen this wording in any of their listings before but their marketing manager...one of the hiring preferences they listed is if they have expertise in shipping "RTS games, Strategy games, or... wait for it... MOBAS!" They constantly interate as well how this new RTS is supposed to bring a paradigm shift to the genre. Could this mean that there will be MOBA elements in it?
On November 30 2023 05:15 CicadaSC wrote: Quick little update for you guys on the latest november posting. Haven't seen this wording in any of their listings before but their marketing manager...one of the hiring preferences they listed is if they have expertise in shipping "RTS games, Strategy games, or... wait for it... MOBAS!" They constantly interate as well how this new RTS is supposed to bring a paradigm shift to the genre. Could this mean that there will be MOBA elements in it?
I think in one of their earlier videos they mentioned wanting to experiment with having heroes / hero units, but possibly only in cooperative play. Either way, MOBAs spawned from RTS custom maps and there's barely one degree of separation between them and RTS games.
It's a pretty big jump to go from "they think prior experience in a MOBA game would be useful for a new marketing manager" to "they're including MOBA elements in their game design." I mean, MOBA and RTS are sibling genres, and this isn't a role involved in the design or development of the game. I have no question that someone with extensive marketing experience from a MOBA game would find that experience useful in a similar role with a traditional RTS game.
On December 01 2023 20:09 AmericanUmlaut wrote: It's a pretty big jump to go from "they think prior experience in a MOBA game would be useful for a new marketing manager" to "they're including MOBA elements in their game design." I mean, MOBA and RTS are sibling genres, and this isn't a role involved in the design or development of the game. I have no question that someone with extensive marketing experience from a MOBA game would find that experience useful in a similar role with a traditional RTS game.
You are right the marketing team doesn't have any role in design or development but my argument would be where it's role does come in handy is if they are trying to market the game to moba fans as well. If that is the case I don't think it's impossible to imagine they may do so by incorporating some familiar elements into their game. Especially when you consider they say the game is supposed to reinvent RTS and be a 'paradigm' shift for the genre. Note, a paradigm SHIFT. Not a paradigm PROGRESSION which is what I feel like Stormgate is trying to be.
Mobas literally came from RTS, and you could say Warcraft hero mechanic would be a "moba" element.
Maybe there will be heroes, or map objectives like towers or like there were in heroes of the storm, it's hard to say. But it will be interesting to see how they evolve this.
I agree with paradigm shift being needed for the RTS genre. I don't wany any more blanded mix of Wc3 and Sc2 or another C&C/AOE clone.
I also think there is a lot to learn from MOBA's.
However, please don't give me heroes, minions, jungle camps or other neutral monsters. Also please encourage multitasking and larger armies spread all over the map.
On December 05 2023 04:07 BluemoonSC wrote: The only real thing that separates RTS from MOBA is a team element, by definition, right? So technically a 4v4 in starcraft is considered a MOBA?
I am not sure there is too much to read into right now.
I think it's more tied to the production element. E.g. in an RTS you build bases/static-defense/units.
Although personally I like to think of MOBA's as more hero-centric and RTS as about controlling more units. An RTS game can have hero-units, but the main army power needs to come from the normal units. In MOBA's it's the other way around.
A 1v1 hero-centric game (with almost no other units) doesn't work very well - it will barely have any strategic depth, which is why MOBA's needs to be team-centric. RTS games can't be team-centric but doesn't have to be.
In terms of learning from MOBA's. What I think RTS games an learn from MOBA's is how to create cool abilities. MOBA's have spend the past 10 years inventing new abilities/hero-mechanics. Abilities can't be converted 1 to 1 from MOBA's to RTS, but there are concepts there that I think - in a tweaked form - could work for RTS games.
Basic RTS micro such as kiting, focus fire and pulling away injured units is fine. But the potential is for so much more than just that.
On December 05 2023 04:24 Hider wrote: Basic RTS micro such as kiting, focus fire and pulling away injured units is fine. But the potential is for so much more than just that.
Even the simple stuff remains super fun if executed extremely well. I prefer to keep things simple rather than having a set of abilities that requires a half credit college course worth of study to optimize. A simple marine drop where I preserve my medivac with only 10 health remaining is a buzz. The rush of stimming blind up a Protoss ramp on a stim pack timing push is great.
A great example of this is in hockey video games. EA keeps piling more and more layers of bullshit on their hockey games and it is not improving the fun. NES Ice Hockey and EA NHL '94 have not been topped in terms of fun factor. You can learn how to play these games in 20 minutes or less. Right now, more people are playing competitive EA NHL '94 than every EA NHL game combined except the currently released game.
I don't want a bunch of abilities that require a bunch of study to optimize. "Easy to learn..." please.
On December 05 2023 04:07 BluemoonSC wrote: The only real thing that separates RTS from MOBA is a team element, by definition, right? So technically a 4v4 in starcraft is considered a MOBA?
I am not sure there is too much to read into right now.
I consider MOBAs to be competitive action-RPGs, there's actually very little in them that's unique to RTS games.
On December 05 2023 04:24 Hider wrote: Basic RTS micro such as kiting, focus fire and pulling away injured units is fine. But the potential is for so much more than just that.
Even the simple stuff remains super fun if executed extremely well. I prefer to keep things simple rather than having a set of abilities that requires a half credit college course worth of study to optimize. A simple marine drop where I preserve my medivac with only 10 health remaining is a buzz. The rush of stimming blind up a Protoss ramp on a stim pack timing push is great.
A great example of this is in hockey video games. EA keeps piling more and more layers of bullshit on their hockey games and it is not improving the fun. NES Ice Hockey and EA NHL '94 have not been topped in terms of fun factor. You can learn how to play these games in 20 minutes or less. Right now, more people are playing competitive EA NHL '94 than every EA NHL game combined except the currently released game.
I don't want a bunch of abilities that require a bunch of study to optimize. "Easy to learn..." please.
Yeh it's great. However, abilities if done well can enhance it. Abilities don't need to increase learning barrier noticeably, but can increase skillcap and creativity significantly.
One thing the RTS genre needs to reduce the skill floor is to make it possible to use abilities without having to click units. This could be done with having an ability hotkey tied to certain units. The game would need to be designed around this, but I think it's essential.
Wants to decrease barrier of entry to RTS? Don't they have TBS? (turn-based-strategy)? Asking for myself (a marvel fan) who thinks that Marvel Snap and (Artifact) were decent turn-based-strategy games. Why not just remake a boardgame/marioparty-esque game that is strategically charged? I'm guessing they want to make a strawberry shortcake in a realm of wedding cakes, but are using muffin materials. A challenging experience for sure, but what of the cake lovers? Who's to say they will want to bake the cake and eat it two(II)?
On December 05 2023 21:39 hTx.diorcus wrote: Wants to decrease barrier of entry to RTS? Don't they have TBS? (turn-based-strategy)? Asking for myself (a marvel fan) who thinks that Marvel Snap and (Artifact) were decent turn-based-strategy games. Why not just remake a boardgame/marioparty-esque game that is strategically charged? I'm guessing they want to make a strawberry shortcake in a realm of wedding cakes, but are using muffin materials. A challenging experience for sure, but what of the cake lovers? Who's to say they will want to bake the cake and eat it two(II)?
On December 05 2023 04:07 BluemoonSC wrote: The only real thing that separates RTS from MOBA is a team element, by definition, right? So technically a 4v4 in starcraft is considered a MOBA?
I am not sure there is too much to read into right now.
I consider MOBAs to be competitive action-RPGs, there's actually very little in them that's unique to RTS games.
As a genre, "real time strategy" is extremely broad and lest we forget that MOBAs were birthed from RTS customs.
If we're talking about how much Dota has in common with Starcraft, on the surface it might not seem like a lot but the fact remains that in both games you are making decisions in real-time and they are both strategy games. They have an economy, builds, micro and macro-management of your "army," and "base," etc.
Nothing tangible yet (the basically required spiel about making RTS more accessible), but interesting to hear that 30% of the company is ppl with ___Craft experience and they apparently have one of the key concept artists for SC2 on board?
Nothing tangible yet (the basically required spiel about making RTS more accessible), but interesting to hear that 30% of the company is ppl with ___Craft experience and they apparently have one of the key concept artists for SC2 on board?
Well, does ___ Craft experience include World of Warcraft, because I believe that was always Blizz's biggest team, and is also the least relevant to RTS
At least it sounds like they are interested in maintaining a large amount of community engagement and pro-player engagement. It helps that everyone will be playing the alternative RTS games betas soon too, and players can get a feel for what works and doesn't work from other RTS games too. I'm pretty curious to see what will pan out in the next 2-5 years.
On December 05 2023 20:25 Hider wrote: Yeh it's great. However, abilities if done well can enhance it. Abilities don't need to increase learning barrier noticeably, but can increase skillcap and creativity significantly.
Making a new RTS game that doesn't require high APM is like making a new chess game that has 9 squares and only 1 piece each, the pawn. Anybody can play this game in no time, sure.
After having paid close attention to both stormgate and zerospace, to me personally it seems like making everything easier and things like auto hotkeying isn't the way to go. Both games have almost zero macro compared to sc, especially bw.
It sorts of feelings like playing an arcade map in UMS, rather than playing a real game. Huge part of the game is just missing when you remove macro from the game, which seems to be the solution to all these developers to make the game more accesible to casuals.
Why does nobody realise that Macro and base building are actually a fun part of RTS?
On January 08 2024 18:50 Comedy wrote: After having paid close attention to both stormgate and zerospace, to me personally it seems like making everything easier and things like auto hotkeying isn't the way to go. Both games have almost zero macro compared to sc, especially bw.
It sorts of feelings like playing an arcade map in UMS, rather than playing a real game. Huge part of the game is just missing when you remove macro from the game, which seems to be the solution to all these developers to make the game more accesible to casuals.
Why does nobody realise that Macro and base building are actually a fun part of RTS?
I fully agree. This is one of the main reasons why Dawn of War 2 failed miserably at being fun to me. The Coop-Campaign was great fun but the 1v1 was so fucking boring.
Great game design comes down to composing a big game out of lots of smaller games, and making all of the smaller games fun. Nintendo is the grand master of this - they put serious effort into making every little part of a game fun on its own, while all hanging together to make a fun overall experience.
I think this approach could be taken with macro. While performing macro well in BW and SC2 can be satisfying, it's mostly not that fun for most players. I think the average player sees macro as a chore that has to be accomplished to do the fun part, which is stomping your opponent with your units.
Like Comedy and Miragee are saying above me, it seems like the current batch of RTS games are trying to get around this "chore" feeling by reducing the role of macro in the game, but that's going to radically change the type of game you're playing. Without base management, RTS just isn't the same thing at all.
I wonder if the Nintendo approach couldn't be taken with macro. What could you do to make the macro mini-game more fun? What if, whenever you ordered a batch of units, the building presented you with a little puzzle to solve? Or what if base construction itself were a puzzle game, with buildings gaining bonuses or other attributes from their neighbors? Or... really, I'm not the person to come up with the ideas for this, but I find myself wondering what sort of fun and satisfying interactions might be built into the base management minigame of an RTS that would make the act of constructing a base and building up your army is, in and of itself, a fun game to play?
On January 08 2024 23:41 AmericanUmlaut wrote: Great game design comes down to composing a big game out of lots of smaller games, and making all of the smaller games fun. Nintendo is the grand master of this - they put serious effort into making every little part of a game fun on its own, while all hanging together to make a fun overall experience.
I think this approach could be taken with macro. While performing macro well in BW and SC2 can be satisfying, it's mostly not that fun for most players. I think the average player sees macro as a chore that has to be accomplished to do the fun part, which is stomping your opponent with your units.
i agree. Some people love macro and others do not. Currently, no single game satisfies this disparity in personal taste. If you like macro play Brood War. If you like economy building and macro minmized then play something like Red Alert 3.
If David Kim can come up with something that satisfies both camps while making the combat great then his company can take my money.
On January 08 2024 18:50 Comedy wrote: After having paid close attention to both stormgate and zerospace, to me personally it seems like making everything easier and things like auto hotkeying isn't the way to go. Both games have almost zero macro compared to sc, especially bw.
It sorts of feelings like playing an arcade map in UMS, rather than playing a real game. Huge part of the game is just missing when you remove macro from the game, which seems to be the solution to all these developers to make the game more accesible to casuals.
Why does nobody realise that Macro and base building are actually a fun part of RTS?
I fully agree. This is one of the main reasons why Dawn of War 2 failed miserably at being fun to me. The Coop-Campaign was great fun but the 1v1 was so fucking boring.
What does DoW2 have anything to do with it? DoW2 is an extreme. Are you comparing it to DoW1? Because if so, then both SG and ZS (especially SG) has a lot more macro than DoW1.
On January 08 2024 18:50 Comedy wrote: After having paid close attention to both stormgate and zerospace, to me personally it seems like making everything easier and things like auto hotkeying isn't the way to go. Both games have almost zero macro compared to sc, especially bw.
It sorts of feelings like playing an arcade map in UMS, rather than playing a real game. Huge part of the game is just missing when you remove macro from the game, which seems to be the solution to all these developers to make the game more accesible to casuals.
Why does nobody realise that Macro and base building are actually a fun part of RTS?
I fully agree. This is one of the main reasons why Dawn of War 2 failed miserably at being fun to me. The Coop-Campaign was great fun but the 1v1 was so fucking boring.
What does DoW2 have anything to do with it? DoW2 is an extreme. Are you comparing it to DoW1? Because if so, then both SG and ZS (especially SG) has a lot more macro than DoW1.
Yes, I was comparing it to DoW1 but more in a larger sense, a trend if you will. The reason DoW2 almost had no macro was exactly the same as here: The macro side of DoW1 was deemed to boring and they wanted to have more of the "fun stuff" which is unit engagement. The fact that DoW1 has a lot less macro than ZS or SG makes it even more clear that this line of thinking seems to be more of a logical fallacy because even for DoW1 they felt the need to reduce the macro component even further, even though macro in this game was arguably very casual already. The result can be seen in DoW2. Yes it's an extreme but it goes to show that reducing macro components doesn't necessarily make the game more exciting nor accessible. This argumentation is, imho, a bottomless pit which almost inevitably ends with an RTS degrading into a MOBA experience. Now, I realise this a bit too much black and white thinking but in general my point is that I think the vast majority of players who don't enjoy macro in RTS and don't play them because of that won't be incentivised to play if you reduce the macro component by a bit. You will still retain more or less the same audience as before.
Stormgate doesn't really remove any macro components, it just streamlines the UI a bit. But everything is still there: unit production, base building, resource gathering. ZS removes some stuff like constant worker production but again, it is not comparable to DoW2 which removed basebuilding entirely.
Stormgate has incredibly little macro, probably even less wc3 which was the first game which really removed a lot of macro (compared to games like BW/Aoe2) and focused on unit management (even adding heroes.)
I am excited about this. In contrast to Stormgate who believes a the classical 90s RTS type of game is a well-proven model and just needs to be tweaked a bit, this game is more likely to attempt to innovate. And the genre needs real innovations to survive.
Flying all of those people out to LA sounds like it would be beyond Frost Giant's budget, so if it isn't SC2 related, this would make the most sense.
Based on what little they said, I am guessing it will be a game with SC-like combat but Dawn of War style economy/base management. Basically a bigger budget ZeroSpace. I am not sure if there is a niche for that though.
On March 09 2024 00:32 _Spartak_ wrote: Flying all of those people out to LA sounds like it would be beyond Frost Giant's budget, so if it isn't SC2 related, this would make the most sense.
Based on what little they said, I am guessing it will be a game with SC-like combat but Dawn of War style economy/base management. Basically a bigger budget ZeroSpace. I am not sure if there is a niche for that though.
What makes you think it will be dawn of war style economy and base management? That seems very random.
On March 09 2024 00:32 _Spartak_ wrote: Flying all of those people out to LA sounds like it would be beyond Frost Giant's budget, so if it isn't SC2 related, this would make the most sense.
Based on what little they said, I am guessing it will be a game with SC-like combat but Dawn of War style economy/base management. Basically a bigger budget ZeroSpace. I am not sure if there is a niche for that though.
What makes you think it will be dawn of war style economy and base management? That seems very random.
Just a hunch based on the things they said in the past:
As for what they want to execute, Kim describes it as "the most action-packed PC RTS that has the lowest barrier to entry that is still impossible to master."
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
So they want a game where players don't have to practice mechanics or click fast to succeed but they also want the most action-packed game possible. It stands to reason they will make economy management less mechanically demanding and provide more incentives to go out on the map. David Kim also worked on DoW before he joined Blizzard.
On March 09 2024 00:32 _Spartak_ wrote: Flying all of those people out to LA sounds like it would be beyond Frost Giant's budget, so if it isn't SC2 related, this would make the most sense.
Based on what little they said, I am guessing it will be a game with SC-like combat but Dawn of War style economy/base management. Basically a bigger budget ZeroSpace. I am not sure if there is a niche for that though.
What makes you think it will be dawn of war style economy and base management? That seems very random.
Just a hunch based on the things they said in the past:
As for what they want to execute, Kim describes it as "the most action-packed PC RTS that has the lowest barrier to entry that is still impossible to master."
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
So they want a game where players don't have to practice mechanics or click fast to succeed but they also want the most action-packed game possible. It stands to reason they will make economy management less mechanically demanding and provide more incentives to go out on the map. David Kim also worked on DoW before he joined Blizzard.
To add to that quote:
As for what they want to execute, Kim describes it as "the most action-packed PC RTS that has the lowest barrier to entry that is still impossible to master."
And I agree with this. Even though Sc2 isn't as hard as BW, I still think you need 80+EAPM to actually "play the game". If you have anything below that, you tend to play a completely different type of game than the one that is played at master+ level.
Many new Sc2 players find some type of enjoyment in all-ins/cheeses, because that's how they can figure out a style to win. But they never actaully "learn the game" that way and eventually the fun goes away and they switch to games that are better designed for their skillset.
In my opinion, a new type of fun and satisfication first takes place after many hundred hours of practice when you reach a certain level of EAPM and mouse precision.
To capture a larger audience it needs to be possible for new players to experience real "micro" at a consistent basis and play an actual macro-game with multiple bases taken without hundreds of hours of practice.
Accomplishing that - while maintaining a high skill cap, requires real innovation.
Even though Stormgate is "easier" than Sc2, the 1v1 mode is far from what I consider to be "beginner"-friendly. Frostgiant is probably aware of that, hence why they focus on 3v3 and co-op. I am sceptical of whether that will work.
(I think Stormgate got the worst of both worlds. They reduced the 1v1 skillcap significantly but didn't reduce the skill floor by a large enough margin)
On March 09 2024 00:32 _Spartak_ wrote: Flying all of those people out to LA sounds like it would be beyond Frost Giant's budget, so if it isn't SC2 related, this would make the most sense.
Based on what little they said, I am guessing it will be a game with SC-like combat but Dawn of War style economy/base management. Basically a bigger budget ZeroSpace. I am not sure if there is a niche for that though.
What makes you think it will be dawn of war style economy and base management? That seems very random.
Just a hunch based on the things they said in the past:
As for what they want to execute, Kim describes it as "the most action-packed PC RTS that has the lowest barrier to entry that is still impossible to master."
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
So they want a game where players don't have to practice mechanics or click fast to succeed but they also want the most action-packed game possible. It stands to reason they will make economy management less mechanically demanding and provide more incentives to go out on the map. David Kim also worked on DoW before he joined Blizzard.
The game is already doomed then. Look at the trajectory DoW took from 1 to 3. They basically reduced the "base management" to be on the same level as a MOBA. Their focus to create a RTS with less mechanics and less macro to have fun with armies led to and RTS without macro, without micro and without strategy.
On March 09 2024 00:32 _Spartak_ wrote: Flying all of those people out to LA sounds like it would be beyond Frost Giant's budget, so if it isn't SC2 related, this would make the most sense.
Based on what little they said, I am guessing it will be a game with SC-like combat but Dawn of War style economy/base management. Basically a bigger budget ZeroSpace. I am not sure if there is a niche for that though.
What makes you think it will be dawn of war style economy and base management? That seems very random.
Just a hunch based on the things they said in the past:
As for what they want to execute, Kim describes it as "the most action-packed PC RTS that has the lowest barrier to entry that is still impossible to master."
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
So they want a game where players don't have to practice mechanics or click fast to succeed but they also want the most action-packed game possible. It stands to reason they will make economy management less mechanically demanding and provide more incentives to go out on the map. David Kim also worked on DoW before he joined Blizzard.
The game is already doomed then. Look at the trajectory DoW took from 1 to 3. They basically reduced the "base management" to be on the same level as a MOBA. Their focus to create a RTS with less mechanics and less macro to have fun with armies led to and RTS without macro, without micro and without strategy.
You can remove macro and increase micro skill cap. Although to be far, noone has succesfully accomplished this so far. Every game studio thinks they need to do both at the same time.
On March 09 2024 00:32 _Spartak_ wrote: Flying all of those people out to LA sounds like it would be beyond Frost Giant's budget, so if it isn't SC2 related, this would make the most sense.
Based on what little they said, I am guessing it will be a game with SC-like combat but Dawn of War style economy/base management. Basically a bigger budget ZeroSpace. I am not sure if there is a niche for that though.
What makes you think it will be dawn of war style economy and base management? That seems very random.
Just a hunch based on the things they said in the past:
As for what they want to execute, Kim describes it as "the most action-packed PC RTS that has the lowest barrier to entry that is still impossible to master."
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
So they want a game where players don't have to practice mechanics or click fast to succeed but they also want the most action-packed game possible. It stands to reason they will make economy management less mechanically demanding and provide more incentives to go out on the map. David Kim also worked on DoW before he joined Blizzard.
The game is already doomed then. Look at the trajectory DoW took from 1 to 3. They basically reduced the "base management" to be on the same level as a MOBA. Their focus to create a RTS with less mechanics and less macro to have fun with armies led to and RTS without macro, without micro and without strategy.
You can remove macro and increase micro skill cap. Although to be far, noone has succesfully accomplished this so far. Every game studio thinks they need to do both at the same time.
If this would be fun, why isn't "Dota but you play 1v1 where each opponent controls 5 heroes" something anyone plays?
'Raising the micro skillcap' isn't inherently a goal because more micro is absolutely not linearly tied to more fun. That's why Mobas tend towards one hero and generally heroes with more micro (At least, in dota 2) have lower pick rates. You can't just make more micro and expect it to be more fun - it's very easy to have mentally and physically taxing micro, and that's -bad-.
Most game studios tend to do both at the same time because they're trying to make a traditional RTS, and not some other game. Factorio is an example of an 'other' game that goes almost entirely to the basebuilding side of things. Mobas are a byproduct of experiments that leaned far away from macro and more into specific, interesting micro. You CAN make games that fissure macro from micro, I just don't see why you'd do that if your goal is to make an RTS as the genre is understood.
On March 09 2024 00:32 _Spartak_ wrote: Flying all of those people out to LA sounds like it would be beyond Frost Giant's budget, so if it isn't SC2 related, this would make the most sense.
Based on what little they said, I am guessing it will be a game with SC-like combat but Dawn of War style economy/base management. Basically a bigger budget ZeroSpace. I am not sure if there is a niche for that though.
What makes you think it will be dawn of war style economy and base management? That seems very random.
Just a hunch based on the things they said in the past:
As for what they want to execute, Kim describes it as "the most action-packed PC RTS that has the lowest barrier to entry that is still impossible to master."
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
So they want a game where players don't have to practice mechanics or click fast to succeed but they also want the most action-packed game possible. It stands to reason they will make economy management less mechanically demanding and provide more incentives to go out on the map. David Kim also worked on DoW before he joined Blizzard.
The game is already doomed then. Look at the trajectory DoW took from 1 to 3. They basically reduced the "base management" to be on the same level as a MOBA. Their focus to create a RTS with less mechanics and less macro to have fun with armies led to and RTS without macro, without micro and without strategy.
You can remove macro and increase micro skill cap. Although to be far, noone has succesfully accomplished this so far. Every game studio thinks they need to do both at the same time.
Then why call it RTS in the first place? your previous post also falls under this same flaw.
On March 09 2024 00:32 _Spartak_ wrote: Flying all of those people out to LA sounds like it would be beyond Frost Giant's budget, so if it isn't SC2 related, this would make the most sense.
Based on what little they said, I am guessing it will be a game with SC-like combat but Dawn of War style economy/base management. Basically a bigger budget ZeroSpace. I am not sure if there is a niche for that though.
What makes you think it will be dawn of war style economy and base management? That seems very random.
Just a hunch based on the things they said in the past:
As for what they want to execute, Kim describes it as "the most action-packed PC RTS that has the lowest barrier to entry that is still impossible to master."
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
So they want a game where players don't have to practice mechanics or click fast to succeed but they also want the most action-packed game possible. It stands to reason they will make economy management less mechanically demanding and provide more incentives to go out on the map. David Kim also worked on DoW before he joined Blizzard.
The game is already doomed then. Look at the trajectory DoW took from 1 to 3. They basically reduced the "base management" to be on the same level as a MOBA. Their focus to create a RTS with less mechanics and less macro to have fun with armies led to and RTS without macro, without micro and without strategy.
You can remove macro and increase micro skill cap. Although to be far, noone has succesfully accomplished this so far. Every game studio thinks they need to do both at the same time.
Then why call it RTS in the first place? your previous post also falls under this same flaw.
Haven't heard that one before. So your implicit assumption must be that removing macro from a game makes it not "real", or not "strategy"?
And everyone who don't think so have flawed logic. You simply cannot imagine a world where you can have strategy without macro? Your imagination doesn't allow for that?
On March 09 2024 00:32 _Spartak_ wrote: Flying all of those people out to LA sounds like it would be beyond Frost Giant's budget, so if it isn't SC2 related, this would make the most sense.
Based on what little they said, I am guessing it will be a game with SC-like combat but Dawn of War style economy/base management. Basically a bigger budget ZeroSpace. I am not sure if there is a niche for that though.
What makes you think it will be dawn of war style economy and base management? That seems very random.
Just a hunch based on the things they said in the past:
As for what they want to execute, Kim describes it as "the most action-packed PC RTS that has the lowest barrier to entry that is still impossible to master."
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
So they want a game where players don't have to practice mechanics or click fast to succeed but they also want the most action-packed game possible. It stands to reason they will make economy management less mechanically demanding and provide more incentives to go out on the map. David Kim also worked on DoW before he joined Blizzard.
The game is already doomed then. Look at the trajectory DoW took from 1 to 3. They basically reduced the "base management" to be on the same level as a MOBA. Their focus to create a RTS with less mechanics and less macro to have fun with armies led to and RTS without macro, without micro and without strategy.
You can remove macro and increase micro skill cap. Although to be far, noone has succesfully accomplished this so far. Every game studio thinks they need to do both at the same time.
Then why call it RTS in the first place? your previous post also falls under this same flaw.
Haven't heard that one before. So your implicit assumption must be that removing macro from a game makes it not "real", or not "strategy"?
And everyone who don't think so have flawed logic. You simply cannot imagine a world where you can have strategy without macro? Your imagination doesn't allow for that?
I can’t really think of the last big success that did deviate hugely, Warcraft 3 probably. Sure it didn’t remove macro entirely but it did reduce its importance.
But as per your previous points, it absolutely compensated by adding a lot of strategic depth thru creeping, heroes and items and as we all know had a very satisfying level of micro for many.
SC2 may have QoL changes over BW but it’s still balls to the wall dependent on macroing, and right back to the ‘classic’ template many successful RTS games have used.
Going back to the DoW series, as a big 40K fan too, I think one of the problems that had with the direction it took is execution more than anything else. Less and macro, go fight with various armies from a beloved property? Nothing innately wrong with that.
However if you’re making a game that strips out one facet of the genre in place of focusing on combat, well, it better be bloody good combat!
For me look it wasn’t abysmal or anything but equally for my money, purely on the combat and especially micro enjoyability level I think Blizz did that facet of the game better with their big titles.
By want of an analogy I mean rap music strips out some elements that are core to most other genres, but it absolutely can work. But if you want to have a good rap career, chances are you have to nail your delivery and lyrics absolutely down. Folks don’t @me with some rappers with awful delivery and lyrics, I know they exist believe me :p
To crudely break it down, I think both the WC3 and DoW forks can work fundamentally, it ends up being an execution game. WC3 wouldn’t have succeeded if its substitute macro elements for heavy macro were terrible. DoW3 could well have been a roaring success if its attempt to substitute macro elements for a heavy focus on combat had been accompanied with absolutely brilliant combat.
One additional point I think is rarely mentioned is I find the opposite path has proven plenty successful, namely making games less micro heavy in lieu of ‘more macro’:. If not more mechanical busywork, certainly more depth.
The entire ‘4x’ genre (or well ‘4X life’) is effectively this direction of travel after all.
On March 09 2024 00:32 _Spartak_ wrote: Flying all of those people out to LA sounds like it would be beyond Frost Giant's budget, so if it isn't SC2 related, this would make the most sense.
Based on what little they said, I am guessing it will be a game with SC-like combat but Dawn of War style economy/base management. Basically a bigger budget ZeroSpace. I am not sure if there is a niche for that though.
What makes you think it will be dawn of war style economy and base management? That seems very random.
Just a hunch based on the things they said in the past:
As for what they want to execute, Kim describes it as "the most action-packed PC RTS that has the lowest barrier to entry that is still impossible to master."
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
So they want a game where players don't have to practice mechanics or click fast to succeed but they also want the most action-packed game possible. It stands to reason they will make economy management less mechanically demanding and provide more incentives to go out on the map. David Kim also worked on DoW before he joined Blizzard.
The game is already doomed then. Look at the trajectory DoW took from 1 to 3. They basically reduced the "base management" to be on the same level as a MOBA. Their focus to create a RTS with less mechanics and less macro to have fun with armies led to and RTS without macro, without micro and without strategy.
You can remove macro and increase micro skill cap. Although to be far, noone has succesfully accomplished this so far. Every game studio thinks they need to do both at the same time.
Then why call it RTS in the first place? your previous post also falls under this same flaw.
Haven't heard that one before. So your implicit assumption must be that removing macro from a game makes it not "real", or not "strategy"?
And everyone who don't think so have flawed logic. You simply cannot imagine a world where you can have strategy without macro? Your imagination doesn't allow for that?
I quickly remembered why I ignore your posts all the time.
Never said that. Just said that is no longer an RTS. You have dow2 as an rtt, you have mobas, etc. There are plenty of games where you control squads and just micro what you have with no need to worry for macro.
Its not something that groundbreaking to remove macro and have a very heavy focus on micro. That exists, people just dont call it rts (or at least a standard one), and rightly so.
To put it in the same absurd way you tried to frame my post as something so far out there, or tried again with severe flaws calling me limited, why isn't Fifa of all things an rts?! "Its in real time and there is strategy involved!! Does your imagination not allow for that?!!?!"
Hope this helps you see how that sort of post you make is perceived by others.
Btw the poster above my first post said exactly the same thing that i did, so regardless of what you think, its not that farfetchd. This ends here, completely forgot the user i was replying to. Have a nice day.
On March 09 2024 00:32 _Spartak_ wrote: Flying all of those people out to LA sounds like it would be beyond Frost Giant's budget, so if it isn't SC2 related, this would make the most sense.
Based on what little they said, I am guessing it will be a game with SC-like combat but Dawn of War style economy/base management. Basically a bigger budget ZeroSpace. I am not sure if there is a niche for that though.
What makes you think it will be dawn of war style economy and base management? That seems very random.
Just a hunch based on the things they said in the past:
As for what they want to execute, Kim describes it as "the most action-packed PC RTS that has the lowest barrier to entry that is still impossible to master."
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game. And to play at a competitive level, you don't need to practice the mechanics of it for a decade; you have to be good at the strategy, or countering what you're seeing on the enemy's side. We wanted to make a real strategy game rather than one where who can click the fastest is the best player."
So they want a game where players don't have to practice mechanics or click fast to succeed but they also want the most action-packed game possible. It stands to reason they will make economy management less mechanically demanding and provide more incentives to go out on the map. David Kim also worked on DoW before he joined Blizzard.
The game is already doomed then. Look at the trajectory DoW took from 1 to 3. They basically reduced the "base management" to be on the same level as a MOBA. Their focus to create a RTS with less mechanics and less macro to have fun with armies led to and RTS without macro, without micro and without strategy.
You can remove macro and increase micro skill cap. Although to be far, noone has succesfully accomplished this so far. Every game studio thinks they need to do both at the same time.
Then why call it RTS in the first place? your previous post also falls under this same flaw.
Haven't heard that one before. So your implicit assumption must be that removing macro from a game makes it not "real", or not "strategy"?
And everyone who don't think so have flawed logic. You simply cannot imagine a world where you can have strategy without macro? Your imagination doesn't allow for that?
Your argument is predicated on taking the genre of RTS literally. If we are to do this, MOBAs are also RTS. So is Clash of Clans. You could make a strong argument that Counterstrike is an RTS FPS. Shall I go on, or can we agree that when people refer to the genre of RTS, we're talking about games that follow the Dune 2, Starcraft, Command and Conquer, Age of Empires et al genre conventions?
On March 13 2024 04:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote: It'll be 3 years in June since Uncapped Games announced its RTS Project.
Four months ago, Uncapped Games was hiring for a Senior Community Manager. Hopefully, this means we'll be hearing more about their upcoming game soon.
Let's just hope this is still going and when they announce something it is closer to beeing done than a game with 3 races but only two of them are half done and the third is nowhere to be seen but still want to release in 4 month
I predicted that this would be something that is close to Dawn of War-inspired in terms of basebuilding and resource gathering and SC2-inspired in terms of combat and this documentary further enforces that idea. I wasn't really hopeful about this game because I like the macro aspect of RTS but this sounded worse than I feared. The things they are saying mirrors what an average redditor on r/games would say about why RTS games are dead. Nothing new that hasn't been tried either. RTS developers have been trying to remove the "chores" of RTS for like two decades now. It doesn't make the genre more appealing to casual players. Also I found this contrast between David Kim's and monk's views on supply buildings fascinating. I know which game design philosophy I will enjoy more.
DK spoke with PiG a bit more about his game philosophy btw
edit:
Have to say I'm not super pumped based on what's being said
The supposed issue of mundane clicks like mules or injects could have been solved by balancing the decision making better. The idea of choosing between scans vs mules, or creep spread vs injecting were good designs. And actually put emphasis on the 'strategy' part that DK keeps talking about.
The issue in sc2 was that you can make enough queens to do everything and so game was then balanced around people always hitting injects. Hitting mules isn't even that impactful on the game because OC energy is capped at 200 and not 50, you don't really lose much by being minutes late on mule drops.
Now, removing the mundane macro part of rts can definitely still make a good game, hell extremes like Hearthstone and autobattlers are popular enough. But I don't think the mundane macro part is actually something that makes RTS suffer. People enjoy base building and mining resources. Even WC3, the least 'base building' of the genre greats, still had a great balance of mechanical skill during fights.
As for supply depots, the idea of supply structures having secondary purposes that other games are doing is just so much better than viewing it as a pointless and unnecessary click. By giving supply structures secondary uses, you both make them actually matter (decision making) and also incentivise players to build them for other reasons, so they'll make them anyway and are less likely to get supply blocked.
But at the end of the day you can still play any strategy you want in sc2, sure you'll always be worse than a player with better mechanics. But if you want to have fun winning with your cool strategies and decision making, you'll just do so at an MMR where people are your skill level. Everyone wins 50% of their games in a ranked system. On top of that, there are GMs with 100 APM, and GMs that do only canon rush. The idea that you need 300 APM to play sc2 is only true if you're goal is to become pro.
Love the videos, it's building honest hype. It definitely feels like this game is going to have some distinct identity.
Out there rambling: They invited 'card gamers', probably reading too much into it, but I can definitely see something like 'picking cards' that defines the early game, without spending the boring first few minutes (also good for spectating) while perhaps retaining some tension between rush/eco.
Anyway the game might turn out good or bad, it's essentially pointless to theorize at this point. Looking forward to the reveal and thank god they aren't trying (so far) to pull us emotionally into it by saying dumb stuff like saving rts.
Minor addition: defn agree that base building should be part of a 'proper' rts, hope it's still there to some capacity. But I'd not be sad if supply depots specifically are removed, for instance.
I like the interview, the chain of thoughts make sense to me. I am just happy someone is bringing in major shakeup to the genre. And I am glad he ain’t babbling too much about esport potential etc.
On April 19 2024 02:49 _Spartak_ wrote: I predicted that this would be something that is close to Dawn of War-inspired in terms of basebuilding and resource gathering and SC2-inspired in terms of combat and this documentary further enforces that idea. I wasn't really hopeful about this game because I like the macro aspect of RTS but this sounded worse than I feared. The things they are saying mirrors what an average redditor on r/games would say about why RTS games are dead. Nothing new that hasn't been tried either. RTS developers have been trying to remove the "chores" of RTS for like two decades now. It doesn't make the genre more appealing to casual players. Also I found this contrast between David Kim's and monk's views on supply buildings fascinating. I know which game design philosophy I will enjoy more.
My experience from the playtest is that regardless of whatever the official rhetoric might end up being, it's absolutely NOT directly competing in the traditional RTS space or "improving" on the old model. I wouldn't say it's quite traditional RTS -> MOBA in terms of difference, but it might help to just think of it as a different sub-genre entirely.
I think it succeeds quite well at its core concept, and it's rather fun (there's also plenty of Twitter testimonials from people who are more hardcore 1v1 SC2/RTS players than me). It's not trying to engage you as a traditional RTS fan per se—it has just enough crossover with traditional RTS that it might entice you to try a totally different kind of game.
Awesome treat to see MrJack draw a bit live (@16min). He's like drawing out great looking RTS units in real-time. I mean maybe he's re-drawing pre-designed things but it looks crazy good. Hopefully they can translate the look to 3d/in-game properly.
Can't believe Blizzard lost him, he should have been art directing their whole operation on a professional athlete sized contract.
The game may turn out to be loads of fun, especially for players outside of the RTS space, but I was hoping that one of these studios was going to take on the challenge of creating a very mechanical and fun game. The argument seems to be that a high APM requirement and lots of multitasking is either tedious or exclusive, but I don't think it paints an accurate picture. I think some of the harder mechanical RTS aren't as fun as they could be for different reasons—not because they're mechanical, and not necessarily because there's 1-2 minutes of down time at the start of the game.
I always felt that if you filled an aesthetically badass game with loads of cool moments and fulfilling interactions, interested players would rise to the occasion to learn the game and participate in the fun that's being had. Maybe this kind of game wouldn't "be for everyone", but I find the premise of making a game for everyone to be a bit of a false one anyways.
All that said, I'm very interested to experience it for myself. After a long drought of RTS, it feels like we're getting many seasons of Game of Thrones all at once. Pretty wild times!
On April 19 2024 12:25 RogerChillingworth wrote: The game may turn out to be loads of fun, especially for players outside of the RTS space, but I was hoping that one of these studios was going to take on the challenge of creating a very mechanical and fun game. The argument seems to be that a high APM requirement and lots of multitasking is either tedious or exclusive, but I don't think it paints an accurate picture. I think some of the harder mechanical RTS aren't as fun as they could be for different reasons—not because they're mechanical, and not necessarily because there's 1-2 minutes of down time at the start of the game.
I always felt that if you filled an aesthetically badass game with loads of cool moments and fulfilling interactions, interested players would rise to the occasion to learn the game and participate in the fun that's being had. Maybe this kind of game wouldn't "be for everyone", but I find the premise of making a game for everyone to be a bit of a false one anyways.
I mean of course a highly mechanical game can be good fun for a wide range of people, it was called Starcraft! An extremely challenging game and yet tons of kids across a whole ton of nations were having fun with camping with mass photon cannons versus camping with mass siege tanks on The Hunters at LAN.
Is the point that our modern internet just killed the ability to have casual fun in a game? I mean, maybe to an extent...
On April 19 2024 12:25 RogerChillingworth wrote: The game may turn out to be loads of fun, especially for players outside of the RTS space, but I was hoping that one of these studios was going to take on the challenge of creating a very mechanical and fun game. The argument seems to be that a high APM requirement and lots of multitasking is either tedious or exclusive, but I don't think it paints an accurate picture. I think some of the harder mechanical RTS aren't as fun as they could be for different reasons—not because they're mechanical, and not necessarily because there's 1-2 minutes of down time at the start of the game.
I always felt that if you filled an aesthetically badass game with loads of cool moments and fulfilling interactions, interested players would rise to the occasion to learn the game and participate in the fun that's being had. Maybe this kind of game wouldn't "be for everyone", but I find the premise of making a game for everyone to be a bit of a false one anyways.
All that said, I'm very interested to experience it for myself. After a long drought of RTS, it feels like we're getting many seasons of Game of Thrones all at once. Pretty wild times!
Maybe I'm on the edge of NDA territory here but some of the barrier-to-entry/beginner friendly rhetoric just feels like lip service. IMO, in a real time game, all you can do is REALLOCATE clicks/attention to different sectors. And, indeed, nothing about the playtest made me feel that it was "easier"—I just had to focus on different things.
TBH I didn't even play that much, but I felt like I was pretty quickly being pushed to maximize my attention/clicks. I mean, maybe their test pool was small enough so that I played myself into the tryhard MMR pretty fast? Still, from what they claim about internal/employee tests, they've succeeded at compressing the skill gap from the bottom up, so low-tier people have a better chance. You always have to keep in mind from a TL.net/hardcore RTS community standpoint, our discourse ignores prolly 99% of the RTS community.
On April 19 2024 14:56 Waxangel wrote: Still, from what they claim about internal/employee tests, they've succeeded at compressing the skill gap from the bottom up, so low-tier people have a better chance.
What does that mean in practice? Is it just that 'classic RTS' skills matter less in favor of different skills, or is it that the game outcome is more random?
On April 19 2024 14:56 Waxangel wrote: Still, from what they claim about internal/employee tests, they've succeeded at compressing the skill gap from the bottom up, so low-tier people have a better chance.
What does that mean in practice? Is it just that 'classic RTS' skills matter less in favor of different skills, or is it that the game outcome is more random?
ionno what the mechanism is, but they claim the non-RTS/lower-skilled people are still having fun, so maybe they've found something at that level. At least for my personal experience, I thought it was an equally APM-intensive game as any other 'traditional' RTS—just with actions reallocated to other places (because that's how real time games inherently work). I didn't feel like it was any easier or harder; just that I was focusing my attention in diff places.
@Waxangel, don't take this question in a wrong way, please - but what RTS did you play beside Blizzard ones?
I.e. if you had enough experience in C&Cs, AoEs, DoW / CoH, TA-likes and a bunch of other titles, and this game feels very different from _all_ of them - it's one thing.
If you're mostly Blizz-RTS player, then it could be that this game's formula was already used in another game and it's not so radically different.
To make an RTS/RTT with less demand on mechanical skill, either you put a lot of QoL and automation into your game like Zero-K, or you put some restriction on unit control or unit movement like in Total War, RUSE, Kohan, Majesty etc to make units fundamentally less micro-able.
Loved the comparison in supply. Both had some great points :D And just because there is less macro doesn't mean it's less mechanical. Don't get those confused! I'm reading through this thread and have a feeling some people kinda interchange does two but they are two completely different things
Looking at the documentary in more detail, looks like there are 8 units and 3 structures right now (one for increasing resource gathering rate and two tech buildings that unlock units):
I know it is early and all but the way they designed the UI doesn't really leave room for much going forward. The 8 units seem to be selected before the match in a loadout style:
At the end of this interview, David Kim says the game will be free to play and they will be selling units (that can also be unlocked by playing) so that would also support the loadout idea.
On April 19 2024 18:15 _Spartak_ wrote: At the end of this interview, David Kim says the game will be free to play and they will be selling units (that can also be unlocked by playing) so that would also support the loadout idea.
On April 19 2024 12:25 RogerChillingworth wrote: The game may turn out to be loads of fun, especially for players outside of the RTS space, but I was hoping that one of these studios was going to take on the challenge of creating a very mechanical and fun game. The argument seems to be that a high APM requirement and lots of multitasking is either tedious or exclusive, but I don't think it paints an accurate picture. I think some of the harder mechanical RTS aren't as fun as they could be for different reasons—not because they're mechanical, and not necessarily because there's 1-2 minutes of down time at the start of the game.
I always felt that if you filled an aesthetically badass game with loads of cool moments and fulfilling interactions, interested players would rise to the occasion to learn the game and participate in the fun that's being had. Maybe this kind of game wouldn't "be for everyone", but I find the premise of making a game for everyone to be a bit of a false one anyways.
All that said, I'm very interested to experience it for myself. After a long drought of RTS, it feels like we're getting many seasons of Game of Thrones all at once. Pretty wild times!
Maybe I'm on the edge of NDA territory here but some of the barrier-to-entry/beginner friendly rhetoric just feels like lip service. IMO, in a real time game, all you can do is REALLOCATE clicks/attention to different sectors. And, indeed, nothing about the playtest made me feel that it was "easier"—I just had to focus on different things.
TBH I didn't even play that much, but I felt like I was pretty quickly being pushed to maximize my attention/clicks. I mean, maybe their test pool was small enough so that I played myself into the tryhard MMR pretty fast? Still, from what they claim about internal/employee tests, they've succeeded at compressing the skill gap from the bottom up, so low-tier people have a better chance. You always have to keep in mind from a TL.net/hardcore RTS community standpoint, our discourse ignores prolly 99% of the RTS community.
It's a good point. A competitive RTS needs to be about APM/mouse-precision, just as much as a competitive FPS needs to reward good aiming.
But what RTS game-designers needs to figure out is what types of clicks are fun and engaging and which are clicks for the sake of clicks.
On April 19 2024 12:25 RogerChillingworth wrote: The game may turn out to be loads of fun, especially for players outside of the RTS space, but I was hoping that one of these studios was going to take on the challenge of creating a very mechanical and fun game. The argument seems to be that a high APM requirement and lots of multitasking is either tedious or exclusive, but I don't think it paints an accurate picture. I think some of the harder mechanical RTS aren't as fun as they could be for different reasons—not because they're mechanical, and not necessarily because there's 1-2 minutes of down time at the start of the game.
I always felt that if you filled an aesthetically badass game with loads of cool moments and fulfilling interactions, interested players would rise to the occasion to learn the game and participate in the fun that's being had. Maybe this kind of game wouldn't "be for everyone", but I find the premise of making a game for everyone to be a bit of a false one anyways.
All that said, I'm very interested to experience it for myself. After a long drought of RTS, it feels like we're getting many seasons of Game of Thrones all at once. Pretty wild times!
Maybe I'm on the edge of NDA territory here but some of the barrier-to-entry/beginner friendly rhetoric just feels like lip service. IMO, in a real time game, all you can do is REALLOCATE clicks/attention to different sectors. And, indeed, nothing about the playtest made me feel that it was "easier"—I just had to focus on different things.
TBH I didn't even play that much, but I felt like I was pretty quickly being pushed to maximize my attention/clicks. I mean, maybe their test pool was small enough so that I played myself into the tryhard MMR pretty fast? Still, from what they claim about internal/employee tests, they've succeeded at compressing the skill gap from the bottom up, so low-tier people have a better chance. You always have to keep in mind from a TL.net/hardcore RTS community standpoint, our discourse ignores prolly 99% of the RTS community.
It's a good point. A competitive RTS needs to be about APM/mouse-precision, just as much as a competitive FPS needs to reward good aiming.
But what RTS game-designers needs to figure out is what types of clicks are fun and engaging and which are clicks for the sake of clicks.
Exactly. RTS games are games of mass clicking. Just as FPS are games of aiming. I get that mule calldown and larva injections aren't mass clicking actions that are extremely alluring. Even more so queuing marines from 8 barracks (or 14 since you play at a lower level) every 30 seconds also isn't very engaging as a game concept in 2024. But devs need to come up with new stuff. Not just QoL automation.
RTS games emerged as games of immersion, story and lore. They originally worked because they were novel and the concept was to be realistic and build bases and control armies in real time. Any form of gameplay was good.
But now it has evolved into a 1vs1 game. Both casual and competitive. And fluke game mechanics that were introduced because of setting or lore game deep and rich gameplay. Devs so far have been unable to intentionally design good RTS 1vs1 gameplay.
On top of that, besides 1vs1 play, even in single player devs have been unable to come up with novel game concepts. There are many things to try. I am not a creative person. And not a professional game dev. I don't go to investors and ask for millions because I have better ideas than anyone else. But some people do. And they seem to be completely idea bankrupt. Which puzzles me. I am sure I have a lot of bad ideas. But at least I have them.
The major leap devs have to make in my opinion is to be able to see RTS as an abstract game. See it purely as gameplay elements. Not as a a fantasy, SC of modern war simulator. I think one problem and limitation devs have is that everything has to make sense in-world. And then ideas get broken down or rejected or adapted based on their understanding of (competitive) RTS. Which is often not very good.
The best example to me is the resource system. There is no fundamental mathematical approach and evaluation as to how a resource system affects fundamental RTS gameplay.
Even more so queuing marines from 8 barracks (or 14 since you play at a lower level) every 30 seconds also isn't very engaging as a game concept in 2024. But devs need to come up with new stuff. Not just QoL automation.
As an example one of the type of "clicks" I hate the most in Sc2 is control-group navigation. And it clearly results in me being less receptive to mixing spellcasters into my army than what otherwise be the case because it makes army control much harder. Which is a shame because spellcasters can be fun.
From listening to David Kim's interview with Feardragon I am quite optimistic here, by far the most optimistic I been on behalf of any RTS.
The game is fast, action starts fast, APM is still rewarded but in a different way. That's aligned with my vision for a next-gen RTS which goes something like this:
- Sc2 like feelling of controlling units and amount of units (pace of units, lethality could perhaps be upped slightly but I rather have it closer to SC2 than to that of Stormgate) - Significant easier macro. - No need to click on units to cast abilities (manuvering units around should be easy). - Action starts fast (I wouldn't mind if we already started with a small army) and is frequent. - Game is "forgiving" in the sense that losing one battle rarely will cause you to lose the game, but rather only lose you some percentages. - Lots of strategic/tactical decisions around the map + interesting use of static defense to "secure" positions around the map.
On April 19 2024 12:25 RogerChillingworth wrote: The game may TurN out to be loads of fun, especially for players OutSide of the RTS space, but I was hoping that one of these studios was going to take on the challenge of creating a very mechanical and fun game. The argument seems to be that a high APM requirement and Lots of multitasking is either tedious or exclusive, but I don't think it paints an accurate picture. I think some of the harder mechanical RTS aren't as fun as they could be for different reasons—not because they're mechanical, and not necessarily because there's 1-2 minutes of down TIME at the Start of the game.
I always felt that if you filled an aesthetically badass game with loads of COol moments and fulfilling interactions, interested players would rise to the occasion to learn the game and participate in the fun that's being had. Maybe this kind of game wouldn't "be for everyone", but I find the premise of making a game for everyone to be a bit of a false one anyways.
All that said, I'M very interested to experience it for myself. After a long drought of RTS, it feels like we're getting many seasons of Game of Thrones all at once. Pretty Wild times!
Maybe I'M on the EdgE of NDA territory Here but some of the barrier-to-entry/beginner friendly rhetoric just feels like lip service. IMO, in a real TIME game, all you can do is REALLOCATE clicks/attention to different sectors. And, indeed, nothing about the playtest made me feel that it was "easier"—I just had to FoCuS on different things.
TBH I didn't even play that much, but I felt like I was pretty quickly being pushed to maximize my attention/clicks. I Mean, maybe their test pool was small enough so that I played myself into the Tryhard MMR pretty fast? Still, from what they claim about internal/employee tests, they've succeeded at compressing the skill gap from the bottom up, so low-tier people have a better Chance. You always have to keep in mind from a TL.net/hardcore RTS community standpoint, our discourse ignores prolly 99% of the RTS community.
Thanks for the info, that's reassuring. As long as the battles themselves aren't automated, I'm still here.
Eager to see the look of the game and experience how it feels. I want to see some unit designs
But now it has evolved into a 1vs1 game. Both casual and competitive. And fluke game mechanics that were introduced because of setting or lore game deep and rich gameplay. Devs so far have been unable to intentionally design good RTS 1vs1 gameplay.
...
this is not the case, most RTS players play either PVE or Coop, 1v1 is not as big as a site like this here that focuses pretty much only on this aspect might make you think and PVE wise there were decent RTS in recent years
and you dont need to make totally new inventions to add to the RTS genre, a good idea and execution can do the trick, and a few fresh take surley dont hurt there
Even more so queuing marines from 8 barracks (or 14 since you play at a lower level) every 30 seconds also isn't very engaging as a game concept in 2024. But devs need to come up with new stuff. Not just QoL automation.
As an example one of the type of "clicks" I hate the most in Sc2 is control-group navigation. And it clearly results in me being less receptive to mixing spellcasters into my army than what otherwise be the case because it makes army control much harder. Which is a shame because spellcasters can be fun.
From listening to David Kim's interview with Feardragon I am quite optimistic here, by far the most optimistic I been on behalf of any RTS.
The game is fast, action starts fast, APM is still rewarded but in a different way. That's aligned with my vision for a next-gen RTS which goes something like this:
- Sc2 like feelling of controlling units and amount of units (pace of units, lethality could perhaps be upped slightly but I rather have it closer to SC2 than to that of Stormgate) - Significant easier macro. - No need to click on units to cast abilities (manuvering units around should be easy). - Action starts fast (I wouldn't mind if we already started with a small army) and is frequent. - Game is "forgiving" in the sense that losing one battle rarely will cause you to lose the game, but rather only lose you some percentages. - Lots of strategic/tactical decisions around the map + interesting use of static defense to "secure" positions around the map.
This "action starts fast" approach is how they fucked up SC2 maps. Because the game skipped the whole setup phase where lots of scouting is done, the maps devolved into almost identical 2 player maps. That has me worried.
I also didn't like the fact that one of the developers said that deathballs are an unavoidable part of RTS games. This was one of the worst aspects of SC2, in my opinion, and he seemed resigned as far as fixing it goes.
One thing they could implement, since they're experimenting with the UI, is drawing unit formations/movement. A while ago someone posted a video from a game where you could do that. It was some 2D space fleet simulation or something? That was pretty cool.
But now it has evolved into a 1vs1 game. Both casual and competitive. And fluke game mechanics that were introduced because of setting or lore game deep and rich gameplay. Devs so far have been unable to intentionally design good RTS 1vs1 gameplay.
...
this is not the case, most RTS players play either PVE or Coop, 1v1 is not as big as a site like this here that focuses pretty much only on this aspect might make you think and PVE wise there were decent RTS in recent years
and you dont[sic] need to make totally new inventions to add to the RTS genre, a good idea and execution can do the trick, and a few fresh take surley[sic] dont[sic] hurt there
It is absolutely correct because it HAS evolved into a multi-player 1vs1 game. I never said that it didn't also stay the same. Or that it didn't also evolve in other things. Neither I am saying that you can't make games based on all those other evolution of RTS.
The problem is when a game dev wants to make the game around the 1vs1 mode, but they don't give it any thought.
And besides that, the problem is there haven't been many good ideas implemented well.
Even more so queuing marines from 8 barracks (or 14 since you play at a lower level) every 30 seconds also isn't very engaging as a game concept in 2024. But devs need to come up with new stuff. Not just QoL automation.
As an example one of the type of "clicks" I hate the most in Sc2 is control-group navigation. And it clearly results in me being less receptive to mixing spellcasters into my army than what otherwise be the case because it makes army control much harder. Which is a shame because spellcasters can be fun.
From listening to David Kim's interview with Feardragon I am quite optimistic here, by far the most optimistic I been on behalf of any RTS.
The game is fast, action starts fast, APM is still rewarded but in a different way. That's aligned with my vision for a next-gen RTS which goes something like this:
- Sc2 like feelling of controlling units and amount of units (pace of units, lethality could perhaps be upped slightly but I rather have it closer to SC2 than to that of Stormgate) - Significant easier macro. - No need to click on units to cast abilities (manuvering units around should be easy). - Action starts fast (I wouldn't mind if we already started with a small army) and is frequent. - Game is "forgiving" in the sense that losing one battle rarely will cause you to lose the game, but rather only lose you some percentages. - Lots of strategic/tactical decisions around the map + interesting use of static defense to "secure" positions around the map.
This "action starts fast" approach is how they fucked up SC2 maps. Because the game skipped the whole setup phase where lots of scouting is done, the maps devolved into almost identical 2 player maps. That has me worried.
I also didn't like the fact that one of the developers said that deathballs are an unavoidable part of RTS games. This was one of the worst aspects of SC2, in my opinion, and he seemed resigned as far as fixing it goes.
One thing they could implement, since they're experimenting with the UI, is drawing unit formations/movement. A while ago someone posted a video from a game where you could do that. It was some 2D space fleet simulation or something? That was pretty cool.
I think when you hear "make action start faster" you are taking starcraft as the base and +/-10%, but what I am thinking of is something brand new relative to Starcraft. I am not thinking of action as 1-2 reaper/adept micro or the limited amount of variation we have in builds/unit-decisions. Instead, early game would look nothing like we are used to from blizzard RTS.
Early game should still be different from midgame and involve real strategical decisions. This idea where we wait for minutes to build up a real economy before we can express real skills in terms of mechanics needs to go away. A next-gen RTS needs to rethink the early-game and make real skill-expression and decisions happen ASAP.
For anyone interested in hearing a little more about the game, I did an interview with David Kim asking about some specific topics people often want to know more about.
* What does he consider an RTS * Accessibility versus skill expression * Thoughts on unit lethality * How much esports is considered in the game design * What he's approaching different from StarCraft 2
But now it has evolved into a 1vs1 game. Both casual and competitive. And fluke game mechanics that were introduced because of setting or lore game deep and rich gameplay. Devs so far have been unable to intentionally design good RTS 1vs1 gameplay.
...
this is not the case, most RTS players play either PVE or Coop, 1v1 is not as big as a site like this here that focuses pretty much only on this aspect might make you think and PVE wise there were decent RTS in recent years
and you dont[sic] need to make totally new inventions to add to the RTS genre, a good idea and execution can do the trick, and a few fresh take surley[sic] dont[sic] hurt there
It is absolutely correct because it HAS evolved into a multi-player 1vs1 game. I never said that it didn't also stay the same. Or that it didn't also evolve in other things. Neither I am saying that you can't make games based on all those other evolution of RTS.
The problem is when a game dev wants to make the game around the 1vs1 mode, but they don't give it any thought.
And besides that, the problem is there haven't been many good ideas implemented well.
ok for me the majority of the player base makes what type of game it is (and the majority doesnt pvp), for you its something else it seems which is also ok
Actually looking forward to this game a lot. As much as I want to just have a remix of StarCraft to kinda relive the things I enjoyed, I think there’s a huge opportunity to make a new kind of strategy game that is gonna be really fun. And probably my biggest concern for stormgate is that if you try to be like StarCraft but stretch it too much into something else, you end up in a weird spot. So I’m getting excited about games that are changing more drastically and not trying to be a spiritual successor to StarCraft. Of course I hope stormgate pulls it off but I’ve come around to being more excited about more experimental and fresh designs.
On April 20 2024 03:13 NonY wrote: Actually looking forward to this game a lot. As much as I want to just have a remix of StarCraft to kinda relive the things I enjoyed, I think there’s a huge opportunity to make a new kind of strategy game that is gonna be really fun. And probably my biggest concern for stormgate is that if you try to be like StarCraft but stretch it too much into something else, you end up in a weird spot. So I’m getting excited about games that are changing more drastically and not trying to be a spiritual successor to StarCraft. Of course I hope stormgate pulls it off but I’ve come around to being more excited about more experimental and fresh designs.
Yeah same, plus I guess with a couple of interesting projects on the go, the chances that at least one of them nail something cool go up.
Interested to see how this one evolves, there’s some decent pedigree on it and they seem to have their heads screwed on in terms of knowing what they’re trying to do
RTS stories can be special but man do some of these companies burden themselves with it when they have no vision or don't have the right talent. I'm flashing on the SC2: Nova Covert Ops opening cinematic where they have Nova taken prisoner and say:
Iconic crap story moment, basically Troll 2's 'then they are going to eat me!' scene for games.
So cutting out a campaign could make Uncapped so efficient. The late StarCraft team was tied to storytelling without anyone that visionary about it. But they could never break off that commitment to delivering stories.
Another reference to SC2, look at how many battlecruiser models there are (15?). These never see any re-use in even the less serious competitive modes (team games). But having 15 Battlecruiser types is also kind of not useful for custom maps, they are all in the anti-goldilocks zone of being too similar for creative use and too dissimilar for spicing up the competitive modes. The whole thing is a weird relic of the time — things that are nearly skins for competitive units which also can't be used for competitive.
Blizzard made so much stuff for single campaign use. SC2 is an absolutely maximalist game when you get under the hood. But then there's such a poverty of stuff for competitive players.
Even the skins SC2 sells only see use in like <5% of players nowadays (anecdotally). There are whole giant libraries of stuff that no one uses and no one sees. I'm sure many people here have battle chest leftovers and don't realize how low the usage rates actually are.
So now imagine yourself competing with a company the uses everything they make for competitive multiplayer while you have on the heavy vest of having to make all these other types of things.
You are working at another RTS company working on a campaign story about goblinoid politics, or a romance between a space worm and a floating eyeball or whatever shit. Then you go on the internet and see that you are competing with
You close the internet. You now have to script a side-quest where your campaign hero has to retrieve some eyeshadow for a floating eyeball alien for its date tonight. Your multiplayer mode is still a mess but you have to get this done. The janitor accidentally turns the lights out for the night.
On April 20 2024 02:38 feardragon wrote: For anyone interested in hearing a little more about the game, I did an interview with David Kim asking about some specific topics people often want to know more about.
Thanks! Nice interview, I liked the questions and his honest, grounded, logical answers. Especially on unit lethality and the esports topics. I hope these abstract ideas translate into an actual fun game. But that seems to be the case from the testers' feedback. I just hope the monetization model won't be too much of a liability.
On April 20 2024 01:48 maybenexttime wrote:One thing they could implement, since they're experimenting with the UI, is drawing unit formations/movement. A while ago someone posted a video from a game where you could do that. It was some 2D space fleet simulation or something? That was pretty cool.
On April 20 2024 01:48 maybenexttime wrote:One thing they could implement, since they're experimenting with the UI, is drawing unit formations/movement. A while ago someone posted a video from a game where you could do that. It was some 2D space fleet simulation or something? That was pretty cool.
Went to watch some vod from Artosis and Tasteless, this seems really interesting in someway.
Much more hope than stormgate at the moment for me. The only sad part is is the parent company is Tencent. Hopefully this wouldn't plagued by the predatory pricing from Tencent
For BAR-like RTS better fitted for 1v1 you can play the free open source game Zero-K (https://zero-k.info/). It's arguably mechanically more polished than Beyond All Reason but the graphics are not as good (finding artists willing to work for an open source project is more difficult than programmers). It has a fairly challenging campaign with about 70 missions so probably also better for single player than BAR at the moment.
The Line Move video is from the free indie RTS Istrolid (https://www.istrolid.com/), the dev team has some connections with Zero-K so they share a couple of features such as the Line Move. Multiplayer is mostly dead now but it's still pretty fun as a single player experience.
For those saying that the single player campaign of an RTS is oh so important. Yes, I get the statistic that many players do not even play multiplayer. But the story of SC2 is ABSOLUTE TRASH. I cannot get over how bad it is. As amazing as a job people did on SC2 on level design, creating variable and interesting missions, the story is horrible.
So the idea that RTS is and should be mainly a platform of story-telling to be is ludicrous. Back when C&C came out, we all knew the story was silly and not something to be taken seriously. It was just a thin veneer and that was ok.
With WC, WC2 and SC, Blizzard actually did a better job at trying to create a story and do world-building. But what SC2 did to the story is absurd.
Pretty sure most people don't know or care about the story behind LoL, Fortnite, or Magic the Gathering. And chess has no story whatsoever. You need a good game. And 1vs1 games can be completely fun and casual.
The first thing David Kim says is 'We want to make an RTS for everyone', implying that most RTS are specifically made NOT for everyone.
What about making an RTS that is so much fun to play that people don't even care about if the game was specifically made 'for them' and not for pro players (or whatever the hell that even means when a game isn't even released and there's no reason to even hold tournaments).
On April 20 2024 16:28 Crimthand wrote: For those saying that the single player campaign of an RTS is oh so important. Yes, I get the statistic that many players do not even play multiplayer. But the story of SC2 is ABSOLUTE TRASH. I cannot get over how bad it is. As amazing as a job people did on SC2 on level design, creating variable and interesting missions, the story is horrible.
So the idea that RTS is and should be mainly a platform of story-telling to be is ludicrous. Back when C&C came out, we all knew the story was silly and not something to be taken seriously. It was just a thin veneer and that was ok.
Blizzard actually did a better job at trying to create a story and do world-building. But what SC2 did to the story is absurd.
Pretty sure most people don't know or care about the story behind LoL, Fortnite, or Magic the Gathering. And chess has no story whatsoever. You need a good game. And 1vs1 games can be completely fun and casual.
you are contradicting yourself here a bit, you said yourself that the missions in the SC2 campaign are good, which makes this mode viable (as reflected by the player numbers) and the achivements added to the replayability as well id say.
next you said that story was bad (it kinda is over the top on purpose id say), while you say its ok for c&c, but even if its worse for SC2, the numbers still state that the campaign was very important for the game, thus making it a thing that new RTS devs need to consider.
story is just the icing here, but it has nothing (or at least not too much) to do with the need for a good campaign (or single player experiance)
C&C was in 1996 bro. SC2 was released in an era where games had bigger budgets than movies, C&C was literally the first RTS game with it's own story, as Dune 2 was Dune the novel's story.
No, I am not contradicting myself. Level design is not the same as story-writing. It just shows people play RTS for the gameplay. And that often turns out to be single player gameplay. But that's just a decision by the devs. If they don't put in any single player, then there is no issue. Playing a campaign is literally playing through a story. It is the entire concept. Single player can also be just playing 1vs1 against increasingly more difficult AIs. Or the same AI on different maps. Or with different units. Or different game modes.
SC2's story wasn't over the top. It was bad in every way.
Also, can you please proofread your posts and try to use proper grammar and punctuation? Thanks!
Watching more of the interview, I cannot believe that David Kim says these things that were so obviously wrong to me already, before David Kim got even hired by Blizzard to work on SC2. That literally means that all these decades working on SC2 at Blizzard completely reenforced the wrong ideas in his mind.
He is still literally saying that he wants to remove mundane clicking to free up time for more decision making. I can't believe he is saying this in 2024 because this was literally disproven by people on TL back in 2006. And SC2 demonstrated the truth of this over and over. Mules and larvae injects were literally put into SC2 by Blizzard because they automated the game and they wanted to counter criticism that the game was not mechanically demanding enough. And now he is making literally the same argument for removing them. It is so ironic. No SC BW fan ever asked for mule calldowns or larvae injections. They were obviously flawed and bad from the start. Blizzard just falsely thought that the SC BW fanbase asked for these things. Because they didn't understasnd SC BW and they didn't have a coherent vision for SC2.
And he is also presenting this as something he is now doing different from all RTS devs before him. But it is literally the same word salad that comes out from Stormgate.
Even more wild is this idea that players don't think RTS is fun because they have to practice 5 hours a day to get to GM level. Literally no one playing online chess is worried about how they don't have thousands of openings memorized 20 moves deep. Literally no one playing online chess thinks the game is less fun because they don't know how to play all the different types of endgames, that are described in literal 1000 page tomes in several books.
NO ONE.
But in RTS, people convince themselves not to play a fun game because they don't want to practice 5 hours a game and try to become world champ.
According to chess.com: "A total of 12.5 billion games have been played on Chess.com in 2023. "
How many of those people who started a game almost decided to not start it because they were worried they would never become a chess GM?
It literally makes no sense.
He is also saying that 20 years ago people had the wrong idea about video games. In that that they would become like professional sports (this is the only correct way to use 'like', btw ), where people would watch and not play. He uses NFL as an example. I am watching F1 right now and I don't even have a driver's license. I will never drive an F1 car in a Grand Prix. Yet still I watch. I actually have a lot of criticism for F1 and motor sports, but I am watching and tons of people are. Sure, sports could be different from video games. But is David Kim literally living under a rock and has never heard of this thing called Twitch? We literally have a platform for watching people play video games now. In fact, I bet tons of people started to play chess after watching people play chess, when they themselves didn't play. So it is not even that it is false. It is that the reverse is true. People watch others play a game they don't play. And then they start playing it because they were first only watching. But David Kim somehow claims this is not really a thing and people only watch video games that they play themselves. Which is wild. Yeah, the ratio of watchers vs players won't be as big as in pro sports. It is not identical. But compared to what we knew back in 2006, we completely know the truth now that people do watch video games they don't play. Doesn't mean you can build a successful RTS game out of just this fact. But it is completely wild to me that someone who was the lead balance dev on SC2 can have these takes.
Then David Kim ends with an outright attack on RTS fans and how they don't have 'an open mind'. And then he even tries to gaslight them into claiming they won't be as good at his RTS if they think they know better than him what is good or bad about his game.
And we learn nothing about the game itself.
Still, I am interested in hearing about what these innovative gameplay concepts that he has are. Because he 'literally had like 10 or 30 decades' to think about it. And they weren't in that interview linked earlier on this page. Hopefully he is a better game dev than he is a communicator. Also, if David Kim was my friend. I would have a limit. At some point I would tell him "David, I love you bro. But if you say 'like' one more time, I am gonna punch you in the face."
On April 20 2024 17:05 Crimthand wrote: He is still literally saying that he wants to remove mundane clicking to free up time for more decision making. I can't believe he is saying this in 2024 because this was literally disproven by people on TL back in 2006. And SC2 demonstrated the truth of this over and over.
"I'm inclined to agree with the idea that simplifying basic mechanics is a tradeoff, not an unalloyed good. It's something you have to design the game around in order to keep it engaging long term, and that compensatory design usually ends up being much more about high-level fundamentals, since the low-level mechanical stuff isn't a differentiator, and having to play more around the more cerebral side is often just as hard to play well, but harder to learn in a structured way compared to mechanics."
On April 20 2024 01:48 maybenexttime wrote:One thing they could implement, since they're experimenting with the UI, is drawing unit formations/movement. A while ago someone posted a video from a game where you could do that. It was some 2D space fleet simulation or something? That was pretty cool.
Where is that from and how is the game it’s used in? Or is it merely a proof of concept
I vaguely remember you posting it before and meant to follow up and forgot!
Actually, someone else posted the video in the StormGate thread a while ago. I can't take credit for that. :-)
@Crimthand
Yeah, I was worried about some of the things he said in the videos but what Artosis said about the game is quite reassuring.
I wish someone would ask David Kim about some of the things that SC2 got wrong compared to BW, such as the high ground advantage, defender's advantage, the maps, etc. In BW, expanding is like stretching a rubber - the more you stretch it, the harder it gets. It's an organic way of making players in a lead more prone to harassment. If you make the game too mechanically easy, there is a risk that getting an early lead will often snowball.
I am not against less mechanically demanding RTS games. It is just funny that David Kim literally has the same talking point that they had back during the development of SC2. About how freeing up more time would allow the players to play more strategically. Then they also have a guy in one video talking about unit composition and claiming that this should be a reflection of the personal taste of the player, not set in stone by the game itself.
That's just puzzling.
Then David Kim again has this anecdote about how a Diamond SC2 player beats a Master SC2 player over and over in his game because the Diamond player is doing 'crazy multitasking moves' that he wasn't able to do in SC2 as they were 'so focused on other things'. But now he could 'do what the pros used to do'. While the Master player is stuck in SC2 type RTS dogma thinking.
Removing mechanical demand does not add strategic depth. And like Nony said, you can't really make a game where you can just outthink your opponent. You just make a certain decision, and you are stuck with that. And then you lose because you made decision A instead of B. It can be really lame. You actually need to have a deep think on what decision making means in an RTS. What is good and what is bad. What is gameplay/strategy rich or poor, and what is fun and what is not fun.
I am all for game devs coming up with new gameplay principles that give richer decision making in RTS. But all they do is use this as a crutch talking point for when they add QoL. Or as an explanation of why people don't like their previous game.
Gonna watch the Artosis thing. I don't rule out that this game has some very good things. I like the idea that they focused on 1vs1 and to make that fun. And that they started from basics. If I were in charge of a RTS game and we were making a 1vs1 game, I would first make sure the game is fun to play on a completely blank slate map with only the first basic units. And apparently they did that.
On April 20 2024 18:09 Crimthand wrote: I am not against less mechanically demanding RTS games. It is just funny that David Kim literally has the same talking point that they had back during the development of SC2. About how freeing up more time would allow the players to play more strategically. Then they also have a guy in one video talking about unit composition and claiming that this should be a reflection of the personal taste of the player, not set in stone by the game itself.
That's just puzzling.
Then David Kim again has this anecdote about how a Diamond SC2 player beats a Master SC2 player over and over in his game because the Diamond player is doing 'crazy multitasking moves' that he wasn't able to do in SC2 as they were 'so focused on other things'. But now he could 'do what the pros used to do'. While the Master player is stuck in SC2 type RTS dogma thinking.
Removing mechanical demand does not add strategic depth. And like Nony said, you can't really make a game where you can outthink your opponent. You just make a certain decision, and you are stuck with that. And then you lose because you made decision A instead of B. It can be really lame. You actually need to have a deep think on what decision making means in an RTS. What is good and what is bad. What is gameplay/strategy rich or poor, and what is fun and what is not fun.
I am all for game devs coming up with new gameplay principles that give richer decision making in RTS. But all they do is use this as a crutch talking point for when they add QoL. Or as an explanation of why people don't like their previous game.
Gonna watch the Artosis thing. I don't rule out that this game has some very good things. I like the idea that they focused on 1vs1 and to make that fun. And that they started from basics. If I were in charge of a RTS game and we were making a 1vs1 game, I would first make sure the game is fun to play on a completely blank slate map with only the first basic units. And apparently they did that.
removing mechanical demand allows more players to get into the strategic depth, which is extending the different kind of fun for players of different skill level.
WC1 had 4 units max per control group, you won't say BW is removing mundane clicks and dumbed down, right? WC3 was already overtaking BW in most netcafe in SEA, and eventually Dota everywhere and then replaced by league.
Not to mention SC2 is nowhere close to be mechanical easy, and extremely successful across the globe, to the point that we haven't seen real competition for decades.
at the end of the day, rts is similar to fighter genre, where new players are dropping off (even worse for fighter) and only a few pros are getting all the views. RTS at least has more than "execution" type of fun, while fighter is more on iframe and combos/positioning/distance etc, which is significantly harder to 'reduce' for new players.
new RTS will need to be around players first, not esports viewership. The latter does not guarantee a esport scene, the former generates income.
You are misunderstanding a lot. Yes, in SC BW the first thing to learn is to try to macro better. And it doesn't really matter what units you build. And the learning experience for the game will be different. But making SC BW easier to macro doesn't add strategic depth to the game. It is already there, or not there. Regardless of at which mechanical level the players play at.
Second, you are grossly simplifying how mechanical demand works. This argument about "Hey, in WC1 you could only put 4 units in a control group. So by that logic, WC1 was a better game than SC BW" was made over and over back in 2006. And it was stupid then. Also you misuse the word 'dumbed down'. A game is 'dumbed down' by removing skill separating elements without adding new ones to replace them. I am not even going to argue about unit selection limits any deeper. Just read what people wrote here in 2006.
WC3 was only more popular than SC BW for like 1 or 2 years after release. SC BW overtook WC3 in popularity and has been more popular ever since. Not sure why it is relevant or why you bring it up.
Yes, players are not playing as much RTS and fighting games. Maybe RTS is just inherently less fun to a modern audience? What about that for an argument?
Also, you claim that SC2 having no competition means it was successful? In the same way as no one tried to make an MMORPG after WoW because WoW was just too successful? There's a reason very few game devs made RTS games after SC2. And it isn't because SC2 was so extremely popular and profitable.
I think SC2 failed. But this is not a 'SC2 has failed' or 'SC2 is dead' thread. So I am not going to debate it. It is not really relevant either. I am just referring to the discussions about the nature of RTS, strategy, decision making, mechanical demands, automation, interface we had here in 2006. And how David Kim is pretends to be completely obvious to all that.
Also has nothing to do with esport viewership. If enough people play a game, you get esports. That's it. You just need to make a fun 1vs1 RTS game. And that just isn't achieved by stripping gameplay mechanisms from the game, automating the interface, reducing mechanical demand, and free up time for 'decision making'. Everyone and their dog tried that since the release of SC BW. And they all failed. Including Blizzard with SC2. And it literally killed the RTS genre.
The earliest popular RTS franchises are all highly mechanically demanding as it's simpler to make mechanically demanding RTS. The developers of these franchises got to make better funded games, and RTS playerbase has more cultural inertia than playerbase of many other genres because the core audience usually only stick to 1-2 franchises and are highly resistant to changes, probably due to their sunk cost in multiplayer. These are likely the reasons why the mechanical skill demand of mainstream RTS has not changed much since the 90s.
On April 20 2024 18:51 Crimthand wrote: You are misunderstanding a lot. Yes, in SC BW the first thing to learn is to try to macro better. And it doesn't really matter what units you build. And the learning experience for the game will be different. But making SC BW easier to macro doesn't add strategic depth to the game. It is already there, or not there. Regardless of at which mechanical level the players play at.
Second, you are grossly simplifying how mechanical demand works. This argument about "Hey, in WC1 you could only put 4 units in a control group. So by that logic, WC1 was a better game than SC BW" was made over and over back in 2006. And it was stupid then. Also you misuse the word 'dumbed down'. A game is 'dumbed down' by removing skill separating elements without adding new ones to replace them. I am not even going to argue about unit selection limits any deeper. Just read what people wrote here in 2006.
WC3 was only more popular than SC BW for like 1 or 2 years after release. SC BW overtook WC3 in popularity and has been more popular ever since. Not sure why it is relevant or why you bring it up.
Yes, players are not playing as much RTS and fighting games. Maybe RTS is just inherently less fun to a modern audience? What about that for an argument?
Also, you claim that SC2 having no competition means it was successful? In the same way as no one tried to make an MMORPG after WoW because WoW was just too successful? There's a reason very few game devs made RTS games after SC2. And it isn't because SC2 was so extremely popular and profitable.
I think SC2 failed. But this is not a 'SC2 has failed' or 'SC2 is dead' thread. So I am not going to debate it. It is not really relevant either. I am just referring to the discussions about the nature of RTS, strategy, decision making, mechanical demands, automation, interface we had here in 2006. And how David Kim is pretends to be completely obvious to all that.
Also has nothing to do with esport viewership. If enough people play a game, you get esports. That's it. You just need to make a fun 1vs1 RTS game. And that just isn't achieved by stripping gameplay mechanisms from the game, automating the interface, reducing mechanical demand, and free up time for 'decision making'. Everyone and their dog tried that since the release of SC BW. And they all failed. Including Blizzard with SC2. And it literally killed the RTS genre.
You are misunderstanding my point and honestly confusing.
I meant mechanically challenging does not mean a game has more strategic depth, just as removing mechanical challenging mundane task doesn't mean the game has less strategic depth.
Hence I didn't imply WC1 was a better game with more strategic depth, or that we should keep them, just because it was more mechanical challenging, that's more of a point you would support. My point is the entire genre had always been moving towards a more friendly approach in all area, be it interface or macro features.
Making a game easier to pick up (less mundane clicks) and allow new players to access more strategic move allows more players able to get into the strategic side of the game quicker, and enjoy it in more levels.
My point is WC3 is mechanically far easier than BW (and SC2 imo), but obviously it did not have a lower strategic depth than BW nor SC2. And WC3 easily overtook BW internationally in pub scene.
The obsession over keeping clicks for mundane task is simply a false equivalence that somehow it would enable more strategic depth. Obviously it will be replaced by more actions that matter. Are you implying the triple prone attacks in sc2 is not an effective replacement of skill differential, because if that's not a good replacement then what is? How does Serral or Maru become such a dominate players then?
And just a post ago you were saying you don't drive a car but can still enjoy F1, so you are agreeing with David Kim that the game needs to build around having more players to play it then?
If SC2 indeed killed RTS scene, it's because it was too good to replace, not the other way around. It's why BW got replaced by WC3 (esp when TFT was released) globally, and SC2 never even had a competition. (competitions had decades to try) And when SC2 "died", BW also did not replace SC2 globally, BW HD remaster certainly didn't. The closest competitor is just AOE4 (arguably BAR but doesn't even have a scene) and still not nearly close.
Only a BW purist would ever think SC2 is a failure, even after more than a decade of successful international esport scene. At this point I am not sure if anyone with this mindset, have anything valuable to contribute on the topic: how a modern RTS should be.
p.s. I am not sure how much gaming you do but there has been quite a few very successful MMORPG, FFXIV, Eve online, Dungeon fighter online, even guildwar 2 still has over 100k+ active players, hell the new dune MMORPG is getting quite a lot of hype.
There are not many RTSs after the late 2000s because RTS games are difficult and costly to make but didn't make much money compare to other genres that are either more console friendly (there was a console boom for PS3, Xbox360 and Wii and people were talking PC gaming is dead) or more microtransaction friendly, Starcraft 2 was the latest proof of that to the investors.
If you don't believe in this argument about mechanically easier games being better, then why did you bring it up? You raised WC1 as an example. The fact is that WC1 is less mechanically demanding that SC BW. And has less strategic depth. Despite it having smaller control groups.
I am not obsessed with keeping mundane clicks. First of all, this is all subjective. People find different things fun. RTS are games of mass clicking. This is just fundamental. If someone is saying "I think the clicking should be controlling the army, not building bases or any type of upkeep like supply" then that's fine. But RTS can never be games where you just abstractly outthink your opponent. And when you are losing, you just start to think harder than your opponent, and then you just win anyway.
You have a core gameplay and that's what you are competing in. In RTS, that's controlling units and bases. If you just control units, you have a RTT game. Starcraft had supply for lore reasons. Not for gameplay reasons. Starcraft was basically designed for you to have 1 or 2 production buildings of each. It was not designed to have like 8 factories. If you go back to 1998 and you look at how the average person played 1vs1 Starcraft, that's kinda how they did it. One one thought 'hey let's have a mechanically demanding game. Let's give the player the resource income equal to producing from 6 factories. That's gona be really hard, creating a high APM ceiling." No, that only happened with SC2 and the so-called macro mechanics.
It is fine that in 2024 one no longer thinks mass clicking building supply depots is fun. And you are probably right. But the solution is not to have the game auto build it. The solution isn't to just remove supply. Because if you just remove all these things, you get a lame dumbed down game. Limitations also are why games have strategy.
You need to come up with new limitations that are fun in 2024. That are not considered to be 'mundane clicking'. Because that clicking in RTS is 100% of the game. People just decided some clicks are fun/good and others are bad/not fun. And people are probably right about this. Bit it is just silliness to say that when you have way less clicking, compressing the skill spectrum, giving the player less tasks to do, then yes making the right decisions becomes more deciding. But you simply can't have a game based off that. You can't have a game based on what units to build or when to expand. That's not the game. That's just about different ways to play the game.
You can envision a game where you only have a few buttons. One button has three positions: expand, tech, and produce. Another one has two: attack & defend. And a third is a more complex slider on what units to build: air, ground, melee, ranged, fast, slow. And that's it. That's the entire game. The rest is automated. I am not saying no one will play that game. But it won't be as fun as say chess. All this decision making. That's all extra. It only matters if the core game already matters. And the core game is mass clicking.
No, David Kim was wrong about F1. People watch both sports and games they don't play themselves. I don't get how you can bring that up asking me if David Kim was right. Let me rephrase. I can't believe how incredibly stupid that statement was. In fact, I am pretty sure David Kim was lying. David Kim is not stupid. He was one of the few people competent on the SC2 team. I didn't follow SC2 balance after WoL and I get somehow the SC2 players gave him a lot of hate. But the problem was always that the senior designers didn't listen to or didn't understand David Kim.
Also, talking about confusion, I thought that bringing up WoW and MMORPG was an incredibly obvious refutation. Everyone and their dog started to make an MMORPG after WoW. Your argument is that they did so because WoW was obviously bad and impopular. And they all knew they could do better. My argument is the opposite. As is SC2. The opposite happened to what happened with WoW. Let me also point out that MMORPGs are extremely difficult to make. But that stopped no one. You need to connect everyone with everyone else in a large world. You need quests. You need tons of skills, classes, items, towns, words, dungeons, stuff to explore, NPCs. And you need all of it. You can make a 1vs1 RTS game in like a month with a team of say 8 people.
As for some other things I saw David Kim say that are actually good: the different ways the game can involve in in RTS is quite low. And he at least had this concept that you can have way more variation. And that this can make the game way more fun. It seems no one is allowed to say anything relevant about their game because of the DNS. So we won't know anything until maybe June. But I believe this is key. There is a lot of big talk about how this is a turning point in RTS. It is about time! There are so many ways to improve upon a completely lore-based game when you take a perspective of just making a pure 1vs1 RTS. And you step back and actually analyze how an RTS game works and how it is fun. And you take an abstract more mathematical approach. You question every element RTS has had up to this point and wonder if it makes sense for your RTS vision. There is no fundamental reason for example why in an RTS you should start out only caring about a tiny part of the map for the first 2 minutes. You could be doing mass clicking all across the map seconds in. But you could also at the same time still have many divergent paths leading to many different types of games. Which giving like 12 workers or whatever crazy number they now have in SC2 does limit.
There's thousands of ideas to explore. Different win conditions for example. This can give a lot of complications where both players are racing towards their own win. Which is analogous to chess where both players can almost mate the other. But wouldn't usually happen in RTS because when your army & economy is larger than your opponent, then that affects the same thing. With the extremely rare exception of a base elimination race. But in RTS it could literally mean that one player is trying to gain X amount of resources. While the other side is trying to reach Y amount of experience. And where player A having a huge army because they have a ton of resources could actually help get player B a win through experience points reached, because he is losing in a traditional RTS sense, but since he is gaining XP points very efficiently, in part because his opponent controls most of the resources and has huge armies, player B can try to steal a win. You could even have very skilled players play on a second or third map, with diminishing returns. Beginners can completely ignore this and still hold themselves against players who play on the second and third map. You could have a whole secondary game where you can try to steal units or resources from your opponent. Like a hacking cyber warfare game. You can make it so that the win condition isn't to have a huge army, but instead reach some balance. And you have to approach it gently so to not overshoot it. Like to create some pattern or achieve some balance. So that having a ton of units and resources is just as bad as having very little. You could make it so that players can decide to use different types of resources. So maybe your opponent build their economy using resource Z rather than resource R. And you need to figure this out and limit your opponent from controlling resource Z. Or maybe when you use resource R, it actually deposits new amounts of resource Z near the opponent for them to use. So there's a trade off. Maybe there is some sort of virus that can affect your units so that rather than building an army to defeat your opponent, you can invest in using viruses. Maybe resources are actually physically stored and you can come in and steal them. Or maybe you can use energy weapons to convert or destroy or corrupt the resources of your opponent. Many of these things can function as comeback mechanics as well. Maybe every action a player takes changes the map permanently. Either way, these actions have to involve clicking on the map. Because that is what RTS is. And it has to be about directly engaging with the enemy and their actions and responses.
There's so many ideas one can have. The problem is putting them in an elegant way into a good game. But right now, everyone is just making Orcs in Space 3.0, but dumbing it down by removing mundane clicking. Claiming that RTS games are fundamentally too hard. That one can only have fun playing RTS if one can become a top player. Or that it is a problem that a beginner has absolutely no chance vs a top player as the top player can do whatever they want. Yet David Kim is also repeating these myths.
On April 20 2024 21:13 qwerty4w wrote: There are not many RTSs after the late 2000s because RTS games are difficult and costly to make but didn't make much money compare to other genres that are either more console friendly (there was a console boom for PS3, Xbox360 and Wii and people were talking PC gaming is dead) or more microtransaction friendly, Starcraft 2 was the latest proof of that to the investors.
Sure but then look at indie scene, what did they release in the genre? Tower defence/base building like they are billions. (Which could very well had been a RTS game), C&C style like 8bits army, SC style (BAR) etc. (Not counting games that some would consider as RTS like against the storm/frostpunk) Even arena shooter/retro shooter are making a strong comeback in indie scene all along.
We only really have new big classic RTS games development for the past few years, each of them are going up a massive titan.
Anyone think sc2 is a failure has a distorted perception what a failed game looks like. As if another massively success RTS that don't fit their vision would be a loss for the RTS scene.
I can comfortably say there can be no valuable input from these crowds, that's also the biggest reason why we should just move on.
Whether SC2 is a failure is depend on what the supposed goal is, to prove the RTS genre is worthy of a lot of investment at that time? It's a failure like other RTSs around that time like C&C3 and Supreme Commander.
On April 20 2024 22:45 qwerty4w wrote: Whether SC2 is a failure is depend on what the supposed goal is, to prove the RTS genre is worthy of a lot of investment at that time? It's a failure like other RTSs around that time like C&C3 and Supreme Commander.
Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
On April 20 2024 22:04 Crimthand wrote: But RTS can never be games where you just abstractly outthink your opponent. And when you are losing, you just start to think harder than your opponent, and then you just win anyway.
Well, RTS have many dimensions, you can be losing in one and have an advantage in another one. E.g., counter attacking and winning after suffering crippling eco damage. I'd say this is one example where 'thinking' (decision making) is crucial and can indeed win games. Sure, nobody will win by proving a math theorem during an RTS match.
On April 20 2024 22:04 Crimthand wrote: No, David Kim was wrong about F1. People watch both sports and games they don't play themselves. I don't get how you can bring that up asking me if David Kim was right.
I think David Kim was saying that ppl are watching sports even if they don't play it, so he'd be right about F1. For video games, you might disagree but I also believe that by and large viewers are also gamers. I'm sure there are individual exceptions but they wouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
On April 20 2024 22:04 Crimthand wrote: Claiming that RTS games are fundamentally too hard. That one can only have fun playing RTS if one can become a top player. Or that it is a problem that a beginner has absolutely no chance vs a top player as the top player can do whatever they want. Yet David Kim is also repeating these myths.
Again that's a fairly bad distortion of what I heard. He's absolutely saying that the game should be hard. Also, he was not saying noobs can't have fun - they're just playing a different game. He'd like to create a game where more people can experience the 'fun' part he experiences from SC, which requires a certain mastery of basic mechanics acquired through rote drills. But yeah the part where noobs beat pros must be interpreted a bit - it doesn't make sense on its own, unless the game is rolling dice.
On April 20 2024 22:45 qwerty4w wrote: Whether SC2 is a failure is depend on what the supposed goal is, to prove the RTS genre is worthy of a lot of investment at that time? It's a failure like other RTSs around that time like C&C3 and Supreme Commander.
Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
How big do you want a game to be? IIRC it was in the top 10 selling PC games of all time with WoL, you can still find games in seconds to this day, it’s supported a pretty vibrant eSports scene for a decade+
Most games would kill for those sales and long-term interest
On April 20 2024 16:38 Crimthand wrote: C&C was in 1996 bro. SC2 was released in an era where games had bigger budgets than movies, C&C was literally the first RTS game with it's own story, as Dune 2 was Dune the novel's story.
dont know what budget has to do with an intentionally cheesy story
No, I am not contradicting myself. Level design is not the same as story-writing. It just shows people play RTS for the gameplay. And that often turns out to be single player gameplay. But that's just a decision by the devs. If they don't put in any single player, then there is no issue. Playing a campaign is literally playing through a story. It is the entire concept. Single player can also be just playing 1vs1 against increasingly more difficult AIs. Or the same AI on different maps. Or with different units. Or different game modes.
you are literallly saying that ppl prefer to play single player but removing single player mode isnt an issue, if that isnt a contradiction i dont know
SC2's story wasn't over the top. It was bad in every way.
that sure isnt just an opinion. but if you arent able to see that there is no sensible discussion to be had here have fun rambling
Also, can you please proofread your posts and try to use proper grammar and punctuation? Thanks!
looks like you understand my words just fine, but you are welcome anyway
On April 20 2024 22:04 Crimthand wrote:No, David Kim was wrong about F1. People watch both sports and games they don't play themselves. I don't get how you can bring that up asking me if David Kim was right. Let me rephrase. I can't believe how incredibly stupid that statement was. In fact, I am pretty sure David Kim was lying. David Kim is not stupid. He was one of the few people competent on the SC2 team. I didn't follow SC2 balance after WoL and I get somehow the SC2 players gave him a lot of hate. But the problem was always that the senior designers didn't listen to or didn't understand David Kim.
You completely misunderstood what he said. He said esports are unlike sports, in the sense that people mostly only watch games they themselves play or have played.
On April 20 2024 22:04 Crimthand wrote:No, David Kim was wrong about F1. People watch both sports and games they don't play themselves. I don't get how you can bring that up asking me if David Kim was right. Let me rephrase. I can't believe how incredibly stupid that statement was. In fact, I am pretty sure David Kim was lying. David Kim is not stupid. He was one of the few people competent on the SC2 team. I didn't follow SC2 balance after WoL and I get somehow the SC2 players gave him a lot of hate. But the problem was always that the senior designers didn't listen to or didn't understand David Kim.
You completely misunderstood what he said. He said esports are unlike sports, in the sense that people mostly only watch games they themselves play or have played.
Yeah I think this was the big mistake in some recent attempts. Too much trying to copy what real sports do, notably the Overwatch League.
Most good games have a lot of fun mechanics, but unless you know what they are, you can’t appreciate how artfully a pro uses them.
Whereas I can watch golf, tennis, cricket, F1 and sorta know what’s going on. I’ve maybe played each 1-5 times, and I don’t even drive but they’re easy to follow. I’ve played a lot of pool, am still pretty mediocre and a snooker table is beyond me, but it’s one of my favourites nonetheless.
I’ve played a lot of games, hell even dabbled in WC3 DoTA and I still have zero clue what’s going on if I check out a League/DotA2 broadcast. Indeed I think RTS is probably harder to play but easier to follow (based on my limited attempts to explain it to my better half, who isn’t much of a gamer)
On April 20 2024 16:38 Crimthand wrote: C&C was in 1996 bro. SC2 was released in an era where games had bigger budgets than movies, C&C was literally the first RTS game with it's own story, as Dune 2 was Dune the novel's story.
Pedant sidenote regarding Dune 2:
It had its own story (stories) and wasn't just the story of the novel(s) of Dune. A lot of the themes are the same obviously because it was using the Dune IP, but I certainly wouldn't call it the story of Dune, especially with notable absences like house Ordos (one of the playable factions in Dune 2) not being present in the novels, and none of the main characters of the Dune novels (as far as I know?) being present in Dune 2. Dune 2 is in a different time period than the novels, if the emperor of its time is any metric.
C&C being the first RTS with its own IP/universe, sure (except it wasn't), but Dune 2 doesn't tell the Dune novel stories.
On April 20 2024 22:45 qwerty4w wrote: Whether SC2 is a failure is depend on what the supposed goal is, to prove the RTS genre is worthy of a lot of investment at that time? It's a failure like other RTSs around that time like C&C3 and Supreme Commander.
Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
How big do you want a game to be? IIRC it was in the top 10 selling PC games of all time with WoL, you can still find games in seconds to this day, it’s supported a pretty vibrant eSports scene for a decade+
Most games would kill for those sales and long-term interest
Yeah that's my point. I was just being sarcastic that some here think sc2 was a failure and caused the decline in RTS.
On April 20 2024 22:45 qwerty4w wrote: Whether SC2 is a failure is depend on what the supposed goal is, to prove the RTS genre is worthy of a lot of investment at that time? It's a failure like other RTSs around that time like C&C3 and Supreme Commander.
Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
How big do you want a game to be? IIRC it was in the top 10 selling PC games of all time with WoL, you can still find games in seconds to this day, it’s supported a pretty vibrant eSports scene for a decade+
Most games would kill for those sales and long-term interest
Yeah that's my point. I was just being sarcastic that some here think sc2 was a failure and caused the decline in RTS.
On April 20 2024 21:13 qwerty4w wrote: There are not many RTSs after the late 2000s because RTS games are difficult and costly to make but didn't make much money compare to other genres that are either more console friendly (there was a console boom for PS3, Xbox360 and Wii and people were talking PC gaming is dead) or more microtransaction friendly, Starcraft 2 was the latest proof of that to the investors.
Sure but then look at indie scene, what did they release in the genre? Tower defence/base building like they are billions. (Which could very well had been a RTS game), C&C style like 8bits army, SC style (BAR) etc. (Not counting games that some would consider as RTS like against the storm/frostpunk) Even arena shooter/retro shooter are making a strong comeback in indie scene all along.
We only really have new big classic RTS games development for the past few years, each of them are going up a massive titan.
Anyone think sc2 is a failure has a distorted perception what a failed game looks like. As if another massively success RTS that don't fit their vision would be a loss for the RTS scene.
I can comfortably say there can be no valuable input from these crowds, that's also the biggest reason why we should just move on.
Well I think the majority of RTS players want single player or coop games. So with that out of the way games like They are Billions are a good example of a popular modern indie RTS. If you design a game from the ground up to be fun in single player it often plays differently than if you design it to be engaging in PvP. You need a core mechanic that makes multiple games against AI interesting and build from that, different design core even if how you control/build etc can be the same.
I think AI War is also a good example there. Where you are not supposed to be able to steamroll your opponent but instead have to play around it.
Eufloria is also a good example of a fun but limited RTS that I think probably plays decently using touch based devices.
On April 20 2024 22:04 Crimthand wrote:No, David Kim was wrong about F1. People watch both sports and games they don't play themselves. I don't get how you can bring that up asking me if David Kim was right. Let me rephrase. I can't believe how incredibly stupid that statement was. In fact, I am pretty sure David Kim was lying. David Kim is not stupid. He was one of the few people competent on the SC2 team. I didn't follow SC2 balance after WoL and I get somehow the SC2 players gave him a lot of hate. But the problem was always that the senior designers didn't listen to or didn't understand David Kim.
You completely misunderstood what he said. He said esports are unlike sports, in the sense that people mostly only watch games they themselves play or have played.
No no no. He is simply wrong. He is saying they are different. And that we thought they would be the same during the development of SC2. That's completely backwards. During SC2 only Koreans were watching SC BW on tv. And it was just a few SC BW people on TL pushing the idea that even in the west, people would watch games they didn't play.
We didn't have Justin.tv/Twitch yet. There was no live streaming on Youtube. We had to connect to some server using VLC to watch Korean tv to see SC BW. Or use this weird Korean p2p streaming plugin for your browser. And it was just a mini-niche here on TL, and South Korea. It seems people have a really strange recollection of that time. I saw a video by Tasteless and there he claimed people in the US should have just put SC BW on tv and it would have been bigger than in South Korea. That was so surreal for me to see him say that. But that some boomer execs what MTV or ESPN just didn't get it. Compared to Korea, literally no one was playing SC BW in the US at the time he said it should have been put on US national tv.
Then SC2 came out and it literally was the game that made Twitch. Now, everyone and their dog watches games they don't play themselves.
Yet David Kim said we all had this false idea that people would watch games they wouldn't play because that was a totally normal thing to expect. And that then it strangely didn't happen. But it did happen and he should know better than everyone that people on the SC2 team didn't expect it to happen.
I get this is confusing because it is such a strange statement for David Kim to make. Honestly, at this point I am starting to think that what David Kim is saying was so strange and confusing, you all just assume he meant the opposite of what he actually said. Maybe he meant to say that the SC2 dev team expected even more people to just watch and not play. But I find that really strange, because when SC BW people on TL talked to people coming into the community just for SC2 because it was announced, there was a huge resistance to the idea of people watching SC2.
As for singleplayer RTS vs multiplayer RTS, I am not saying one would be more popular than the other. But so far, all RTS games have been made to be single player games, with a multiplayer mode tucked on. No game was designed from the ground to be multiplayer only. At least no game I am aware of. I am sure there could be some niche indie game that did. Of course less people are going to play the multiplayer mode if multiplayer is just a secondary game mode that is just spun off from the single player game mode.
But we have these devs talking about how it is their ambition to make a multiplayer 1vs1 RTS game. But then they just copy a single player RTS game, like SC BW, and strip away a bunch of stuff they call 'mundane', add QoL that reduce mass clicking because 'mass clicking isn't fun' and 'to free up more time for strategy'. While also adding no new innovations to gameplay. And then they say it is the next iteration of RTS.
To David Kim's credit though, he is literally the first person to at least talk about thinking about how game design affects multiplayer game states. And therefore strategy and decision making. This seems like the most basic idea, but I have never heard anyone in the SC2 development talk about this. And no one either for Stormgate.
On April 20 2024 22:04 Crimthand wrote: But RTS can never be games where you just abstractly outthink your opponent. And when you are losing, you just start to think harder than your opponent, and then you just win anyway.
Well, RTS have many dimensions, you can be losing in one and have an advantage in another one. E.g., counter attacking and winning after suffering crippling eco damage. I'd say this is one example where 'thinking' (decision making) is crucial and can indeed win games. Sure, nobody will win by proving a math theorem during an RTS match.
There is only one win condition and that's destroying the opponent's buildings. Everything you refer to emergent.
On April 20 2024 22:04 Crimthand wrote:No, David Kim was wrong about F1. People watch both sports and games they don't play themselves. I don't get how you can bring that up asking me if David Kim was right. Let me rephrase. I can't believe how incredibly stupid that statement was. In fact, I am pretty sure David Kim was lying. David Kim is not stupid. He was one of the few people competent on the SC2 team. I didn't follow SC2 balance after WoL and I get somehow the SC2 players gave him a lot of hate. But the problem was always that the senior designers didn't listen to or didn't understand David Kim.
You completely misunderstood what he said. He said esports are unlike sports, in the sense that people mostly only watch games they themselves play or have played.
No no no. He is simply wrong. He is saying they are different. And that we thought they would be the same during the development of SC2. That's completely backwards. During SC2 only Koreans were watching SC BW on tv. And it was just a few SC BW people on TL pushing the idea that even in the west, people would watch games they didn't play.
We didn't have Justin.tv/Twitch yet. There was no live streaming on Youtube. We had to connect to some server using VLC to watch Korean tv to see SC BW. Or use this weird Korean p2p streaming plugin for your browser. And it was just a mini-niche here on TL, and South Korea. It seems people have a really strange recollection of that time. I saw a video by Tasteless and there he claimed people in the US should have just put SC BW on tv and it would have been bigger than in South Korea. That was so surreal for me to see him say that. But that some boomer execs what MTV or ESPN just didn't get it. Compared to Korea, literally no one was playing SC BW in the US at the time he said it should have been put on US national tv.
Then SC2 came out and it literally was the game that made Twitch. Now, everyone and their dog watches games they don't play themselves.
Yet David Kim said we all had this false idea that people would watch games they wouldn't play because that was a totally normal thing to expect. And that then it strangely didn't happen. But it did happen and he should know better than everyone that people on the SC2 team didn't expect it to happen.
I get this is confusing because it is such a strange statement for David Kim to make. Honestly, at this point I am starting to think that what David Kim is saying was so strange and confusing, you all just assume he meant the opposite of what he actually said. Maybe he meant to say that the SC2 dev team expected even more people to just watch and not play. But I find that really strange, because when SC BW people on TL talked to people coming into the community just for SC2 because it was announced, there was a huge resistance to the idea of people watching SC2.
As for singleplayer RTS vs multiplayer RTS, I am not saying one would be more popular than the other. But so far, all RTS games have been made to be single player games, with a multiplayer mode tucked on. No game was designed from the ground to be multiplayer only. At least no game I am aware of. I am sure there could be some niche indie game that did. Of course less people are going to play the multiplayer mode if multiplayer is just a secondary game mode that is just spun off from the single player game mode.
But we have these devs talking about how it is their ambition to make a multiplayer 1vs1 RTS game. But then they just copy a single player RTS game, like SC BW, and strip away a bunch of stuff they call 'mundane', add QoL that reduce mass clicking because 'mass clicking isn't fun' and 'to free up more time for strategy'. While also adding no new innovations to gameplay. And then they say it is the next iteration of RTS.
To David Kim's credit though, he is literally the first person to at least talk about thinking about how game design affects multiplayer game states. And therefore strategy and decision making. This seems like the most basic idea, but I have never heard anyone in the SC2 development talk about this. And no one either for Stormgate.
In 2003, CPL held a poll for which new game would be added to the game roster for the upcoming 2004 season. Naturally, Brood War was on the list, and TL mobilized as we often did. CPL had denied the inclusion of BW in the past, and TL was even more motivated to prove that there was a real possibility to harness an untapped market in the West. I actually emailed Angel Munoz through his personal assistant pleading for fairness and, having just reread that email, basically coming from the position of a person unjustly scorned. Munoz did reply, essentially saying that he doesn't have to like a game to include it in the roster (and in fact, he personally didn't like Counter-Strike, their largest game), it just has to have widespread marketability. BW was eventually relegated behind Call of Duty in 2004. In October of that year, when CoD failed to meet their registration quota of 100, a CPL employee notified me that the most members in IRC representing their game would get the opportunity to register, but I only managed to gather about 20 people before the deadline (I believe we were edged out by Day of Defeat). TL grew even more bitter at CPL, demonizing Munoz, but in reality, our community was just... small. We had a real opportunity to showcase our grassroots movement, but we simply weren't as large as we thought we were.
Tasteless said stuff like that because we really believed it, especially at the time. But we didn't have actual skin in the game like Angel Munoz did with CPL - it was his (and his advertisers') money, and we didn't have to prove the case and provide ROI models for partners, but he did. Frankly, he probably had BW on his radar for years already (since he knew how big it was in Korea) but just didn't see the numbers making sense in the Western market. That was the aspect we weren't considering. It's easy to gamble with other people's money. So, an initiative like putting BW on national TV probably wouldn't have worked either. But yes, TL for a very long time had this collective delusion that things could be like they were in Korea, if only these old heads would step aside.
On April 20 2024 22:04 Crimthand wrote: But RTS can never be games where you just abstractly outthink your opponent. And when you are losing, you just start to think harder than your opponent, and then you just win anyway.
Well, RTS have many dimensions, you can be losing in one and have an advantage in another one. E.g., counter attacking and winning after suffering crippling eco damage. I'd say this is one example where 'thinking' (decision making) is crucial and can indeed win games. Sure, nobody will win by proving a math theorem during an RTS match.
There is only one win condition and that's destroying the opponent's buildings. Everything you refer to emergent.
From someone who asked somebody else to proofread their post, I'd expect better writing. Not that I care that much.
But aside from the form, I genuinely don't understand what you're saying. You're also often referring to chess; in chess, there's only one win condition, too. So it's all emergent?!
On April 20 2024 22:04 Crimthand wrote: But RTS can never be games where you just abstractly outthink your opponent. And when you are losing, you just start to think harder than your opponent, and then you just win anyway.
Well, RTS have many dimensions, you can be losing in one and have an advantage in another one. E.g., counter attacking and winning after suffering crippling eco damage. I'd say this is one example where 'thinking' (decision making) is crucial and can indeed win games. Sure, nobody will win by proving a math theorem during an RTS match.
There is only one win condition and that's destroying the opponent's buildings. Everything you refer to emergent.
From someone who asked somebody else to proofread their post, I'd expect better writing. Not that I care that much.
But aside from the form, I genuinely don't understand what you're saying. You're also often referring to chess; in chess, there's only one win condition, too. So it's all emergent?!
Then just reread my posts. Or have ChatGPT summarize them or simplify them.
@Excalibur_Z I don't blame anyone on TL or Tasteless for trying or being passionate. But it was just jarring to see Tasteless reflect in a recent video and lament why what happened with SC2 didn't happen earlier, as if that was even a possibility of that. It is just strange how on one side David Kim says people watching games they don't play never happened. And Tasteless saying it could have happened in 2000-2010 with SC BW in NA. There's a reason it happened in SK. And you'd think someone like Tasteless who lived in Korea for so long and who was literally there during SC BW AND SC2, would be able to reflect on these things more accurately.
On April 20 2024 22:45 qwerty4w wrote: Whether SC2 is a failure is depend on what the supposed goal is, to prove the RTS genre is worthy of a lot of investment at that time? It's a failure like other RTSs around that time like C&C3 and Supreme Commander.
Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
How big do you want a game to be? IIRC it was in the top 10 selling PC games of all time with WoL, you can still find games in seconds to this day, it’s supported a pretty vibrant eSports scene for a decade+
Most games would kill for those sales and long-term interest
Yeah that's my point. I was just being sarcastic that some here think sc2 was a failure and caused the decline in RTS.
Does it has anything to do with my point? Blizzard started making Warcraft 3 shortly after vanilla StarCraft, and StarCraft 2 shortly after Frozen Throne. The same didn't happen after SC2, it didn't prove their RTS dev team is worthy of keeping. It's likely far less profitable than their TCG, FPS, MMORPG and looter ARPG. SC2 being the last well-funded and well-marketed RTS for a long time (Relic RTSs after DOW2 are all very half-baked at release) because business people don't think RTS is worthy of investment anymore, including Blizzard themselves.
On April 20 2024 22:45 qwerty4w wrote: Whether SC2 is a failure is depend on what the supposed goal is, to prove the RTS genre is worthy of a lot of investment at that time? It's a failure like other RTSs around that time like C&C3 and Supreme Commander.
Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
How big do you want a game to be? IIRC it was in the top 10 selling PC games of all time with WoL, you can still find games in seconds to this day, it’s supported a pretty vibrant eSports scene for a decade+
Most games would kill for those sales and long-term interest
Yeah that's my point. I was just being sarcastic that some here think sc2 was a failure and caused the decline in RTS.
Does it has anything to do with my point? Blizzard started making Warcraft 3 shortly after vanilla StarCraft, and StarCraft 2 shortly after Frozen Throne. The same didn't happen after SC2, it didn't prove their RTS dev team is worthy of keeping. It's likely far less profitable than their TCG, FPS, MMORPG and looter ARPG. SC2 being the last well-funded and well-marketed RTS for a long time (Relic RTSs after DOW2 are all very half-baked at release) because business people don't think RTS is worthy of investment anymore, including Blizzard themselves.
Yes because unless you have a saviour complex and hoping sc2 is the one, it shouldn't be seen as anything but a success. It is still one of the most successful RTS game ever released.
Doesn't mean it can recapture all the players that have gone to MOBA nor it can create a market that ain't there.
Going back to my point, I can safely say anyone thinking sc2 is a failure can have no meaningful contribution. By all matrix it is the last great RTS and even indie or AA studios dont even try to compete pretty much says it all. The genre is profitable, it's just sc2 and 1 or 2 others already captured majority % of the market.
On April 20 2024 22:45 qwerty4w wrote: Whether SC2 is a failure is depend on what the supposed goal is, to prove the RTS genre is worthy of a lot of investment at that time? It's a failure like other RTSs around that time like C&C3 and Supreme Commander.
Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
How big do you want a game to be? IIRC it was in the top 10 selling PC games of all time with WoL, you can still find games in seconds to this day, it’s supported a pretty vibrant eSports scene for a decade+
Most games would kill for those sales and long-term interest
Yeah that's my point. I was just being sarcastic that some here think sc2 was a failure and caused the decline in RTS.
Does it has anything to do with my point? Blizzard started making Warcraft 3 shortly after vanilla StarCraft, and StarCraft 2 shortly after Frozen Throne. The same didn't happen after SC2, it didn't prove their RTS dev team is worthy of keeping. It's likely far less profitable than their TCG, FPS, MMORPG and looter ARPG. SC2 being the last well-funded and well-marketed RTS for a long time (Relic RTSs after DOW2 are all very half-baked at release) because business people don't think RTS is worthy of investment anymore, including Blizzard themselves.
Yes because unless you have a saviour complex and hoping sc2 is the one, it shouldn't be seen as anything but a success. It is still one of the most successful RTS game ever released.
Doesn't mean it can recapture all the players that have gone to MOBA nor it can create a market that ain't there.
Going back to my point, I can safely say anyone thinking sc2 is a failure can have no meaningful contribution. By all matrix it is the last great RTS and even indie or AA studios dont even try to compete pretty much says it all. The genre is profitable, it's just sc2 and 1 or 2 others already captured majority % of the market.
It was commercially a succes. But how can it be a true succes if it's predecessor has better gameplay?
Do you people have no memory of how shitty the game release was? How bad b.net 2.0 was? Everything about sc2 was pretty damn bad if you compare it to sc1 and wc3. It took years and years before people could create meaningful communities around the game and then discord took over lol, there was just nothing in place with bnet 2.0 It was a ladder matchmaking simulator with 0 social functions.
The gameplay, of course it's arguable and pretty subjective.. But even nowadays sc1 , a 25 year old game with almost zero post-development, creates better games. Go watch Snow vs Soulkey and compare it to shitty sc2 a moving + spellcasting. And people worked on this game for 10+ years after release and there were 2 major expansion packs and massive support for the game.
On April 20 2024 22:45 qwerty4w wrote: Whether SC2 is a failure is depend on what the supposed goal is, to prove the RTS genre is worthy of a lot of investment at that time? It's a failure like other RTSs around that time like C&C3 and Supreme Commander.
Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
How big do you want a game to be? IIRC it was in the top 10 selling PC games of all time with WoL, you can still find games in seconds to this day, it’s supported a pretty vibrant eSports scene for a decade+
Most games would kill for those sales and long-term interest
Yeah that's my point. I was just being sarcastic that some here think sc2 was a failure and caused the decline in RTS.
Does it has anything to do with my point? Blizzard started making Warcraft 3 shortly after vanilla StarCraft, and StarCraft 2 shortly after Frozen Throne. The same didn't happen after SC2, it didn't prove their RTS dev team is worthy of keeping. It's likely far less profitable than their TCG, FPS, MMORPG and looter ARPG. SC2 being the last well-funded and well-marketed RTS for a long time (Relic RTSs after DOW2 are all very half-baked at release) because business people don't think RTS is worthy of investment anymore, including Blizzard themselves.
Yes because unless you have a saviour complex and hoping sc2 is the one, it shouldn't be seen as anything but a success. It is still one of the most successful RTS game ever released.
Doesn't mean it can recapture all the players that have gone to MOBA nor it can create a market that ain't there.
Going back to my point, I can safely say anyone thinking sc2 is a failure can have no meaningful contribution. By all matrix it is the last great RTS and even indie or AA studios dont even try to compete pretty much says it all. The genre is profitable, it's just sc2 and 1 or 2 others already captured majority % of the market.
It was commercially a succes. But how can it be a true succes if it's predecessor has better gameplay?
Do you people have no memory of how shitty the game release was? How bad b.net 2.0 was? Everything about sc2 was pretty damn bad if you compare it to sc1 and wc3. It took years and years before people could create meaningful communities around the game and then discord took over lol, there was just nothing in place with bnet 2.0 It was a ladder matchmaking simulator with 0 social functions.
The gameplay, of course it's arguable and pretty subjective.. But even nowadays sc1 , a 25 year old game with almost zero post-development, creates better games. Go watch Snow vs Soulkey and compare it to shitty sc2 a moving + spellcasting. And people worked on this game for 10+ years after release and there were 2 major expansion packs and massive support for the game.
Except everywhere outside Korea, sc2 has a larger playerbase and viewership. Gameplay itself isn't the end all be all, quite a few of fps are better than COD, FF14 is better than WOW. Winning spirit (RIP) Is better than FIFA. SF alpha 3 is generally regarded as the best game in the franchise.
So no, I disagree with pretty much everything you say and not relevant at this point. BW couldn't even stood up against WC3 at most SEA pub in just less than a year.
It didn't even capture most of what audience lost to MOBA or SC2 dying scene. AOE2 actually captured quite a bit of players when AOE4 struggled at the beginning.
On April 21 2024 14:59 Crimthand wrote: As for singleplayer RTS vs multiplayer RTS, I am not saying one would be more popular than the other. But so far, all RTS games have been made to be single player games, with a multiplayer mode tucked on. No game was designed from the ground to be multiplayer only. At least no game I am aware of. I am sure there could be some niche indie game that did. Of course less people are going to play the multiplayer mode if multiplayer is just a secondary game mode that is just spun off from the single player game mode.
But we have these devs talking about how it is their ambition to make a multiplayer 1vs1 RTS game. But then they just copy a single player RTS game, like SC BW, and strip away a bunch of stuff they call 'mundane', add QoL that reduce mass clicking because 'mass clicking isn't fun' and 'to free up more time for strategy'. While also adding no new innovations to gameplay. And then they say it is the next iteration of RTS.
To David Kim's credit though, he is literally the first person to at least talk about thinking about how game design affects multiplayer game states. And therefore strategy and decision making. This seems like the most basic idea, but I have never heard anyone in the SC2 development talk about this. And no one either for Stormgate.
I don't think it is necessary to have a complete different design for multiplayer focused RTS. COH had a pretty interesting new RTS formula and work well in both. And there is just as much room to further iteration, as there is for a whole new subgenre-ish level of changes like tooth and tail.
On April 21 2024 14:59 Crimthand wrote: As for singleplayer RTS vs multiplayer RTS, I am not saying one would be more popular than the other. But so far, all RTS games have been made to be single player games, with a multiplayer mode tucked on. No game was designed from the ground to be multiplayer only. At least no game I am aware of. I am sure there could be some niche indie game that did. Of course less people are going to play the multiplayer mode if multiplayer is just a secondary game mode that is just spun off from the single player game mode.
But we have these devs talking about how it is their ambition to make a multiplayer 1vs1 RTS game. But then they just copy a single player RTS game, like SC BW, and strip away a bunch of stuff they call 'mundane', add QoL that reduce mass clicking because 'mass clicking isn't fun' and 'to free up more time for strategy'. While also adding no new innovations to gameplay. And then they say it is the next iteration of RTS.
To David Kim's credit though, he is literally the first person to at least talk about thinking about how game design affects multiplayer game states. And therefore strategy and decision making. This seems like the most basic idea, but I have never heard anyone in the SC2 development talk about this. And no one either for Stormgate.
I don't think it is necessary to have a complete different design for multiplayer focused RTS.
Of course it isn't necessary. You could copy SC BW as much as possible. Which by chance got a very good formula. But why not use the knowledge learned in 25 years of SC BW RTS about what makes 1vs1 multiplayer RTS fun to play or watch? Why not re-evaluate core gameplay design features that were decided upon for lore/setting/immersion reasons, and ask yourself if they are actually the best choice for getting the best 1vs1 RTS possible.
You could also just test it out. Make a simple RTS. And change some core elements about it, trying to find the best choice for 1vs1 play.
For example, is having 2 resources the best choice? With one being used more often, and each race having a few buildings and 1 unit which only uses resource A? Is that really the best? Is it better to have just 1 resource? Or should you have 2 resources that are not tiered, but work in parallel? Should there be transmutation between different resources? Or not at all. All these things were originally picked in C&C and WC & SC for lore reasons. Not even for single player gameplay reasons. How these choices would affect multiplayer was not even thought about.
I don't see Stormgate devs come out and say this "Hey, we have 150 combined years of RTS experience on our dev team. At the start, we had a brainstorm session about resource systems. And we specifically picked a system to give rich gameplay, multiple strategies. This is our system, so since we explained it, you can now appreciate how it can be superior to SC BW. But also mathematically validated this model to be superior with our game theory expert. We even put out a research paper on it. And we proved to ourselves by just playing our games internally that indeed this resource system is more fun. This is our competitive advantage and why our game will be the a quantum leap for RTS. And we also plan to apply this same design philosophy to other elements of the game.
CoH also had a completely different style of combat and had the advantage of WW2 setting, which is a big appeal to some people. That allowed it to carve its own niche (even if not as big as the biggest traditional RTSes).
Uncapped's philosophy sounds more like what Battlerite was trying to do for MOBAs. Taking a formula and removing parts that are deeemed "boring" (laning, jungling, itemization in the case of Battlerite and in-depth basebuilding/macromanagenent in case of Uncapped Games) to fully focus the game on what is deemed as the "most fun" part, ie. combat. In case of Battlerite, it created a game that was fun at first but didn't have the longevity of the formula it was trying to improve. I don't see why it would be different this time.
CoH was single player RTT. The point is learning why SC BW worked, and putting that into a 1vs1 RTS game. Not ignoring SC BW, and making your own single player RTT game. Completely different things.
On April 21 2024 14:59 Crimthand wrote: As for singleplayer RTS vs multiplayer RTS, I am not saying one would be more popular than the other. But so far, all RTS games have been made to be single player games, with a multiplayer mode tucked on. No game was designed from the ground to be multiplayer only. At least no game I am aware of. I am sure there could be some niche indie game that did. Of course less people are going to play the multiplayer mode if multiplayer is just a secondary game mode that is just spun off from the single player game mode.
But we have these devs talking about how it is their ambition to make a multiplayer 1vs1 RTS game. But then they just copy a single player RTS game, like SC BW, and strip away a bunch of stuff they call 'mundane', add QoL that reduce mass clicking because 'mass clicking isn't fun' and 'to free up more time for strategy'. While also adding no new innovations to gameplay. And then they say it is the next iteration of RTS.
To David Kim's credit though, he is literally the first person to at least talk about thinking about how game design affects multiplayer game states. And therefore strategy and decision making. This seems like the most basic idea, but I have never heard anyone in the SC2 development talk about this. And no one either for Stormgate.
I don't think it is necessary to have a complete different design for multiplayer focused RTS.
Of course it isn't necessary. You could copy SC BW as much as possible. Which by chance got a very good formula. But why not use the knowledge learned in 25 years of SC BW RTS about what makes 1vs1 multiplayer RTS fun to play or watch? Why not re-evaluate core gameplay design features that were decided upon for lore/setting/immersion reasons, and ask yourself if they are actually the best choice for getting the best 1vs1 RTS possible.
You could also just test it out. Make a simple RTS. And change some core elements about it, trying to find the best choice for 1vs1 play.
For example, is having 2 resources the best choice? With one being used more often, and each race having a few buildings and 1 unit which only uses resource A? Is that really the best? Is it better to have just 1 resource? Or should you have 2 resources that are not tiered, but work in parallel? Should there be transmutation between different resources? Or not at all. All these things were originally picked in C&C and WC & SC for lore reasons. Not even for single player gameplay reasons. How these choices would affect multiplayer was not even thought about.
I don't see Stormgate devs come out and say this "Hey, we have 150 combined years of RTS experience on our dev team. At the start, we had a brainstorm session about resource systems. And we specifically picked a system to give rich gameplay, multiple strategies. This is our system, so since we explained it, you can now appreciate how it can be superior to SC BW. But also mathematically validated this model to be superior with our game theory expert. We even put out a research paper on it. And we proved to ourselves by just playing our games internally that indeed this resource system is more fun. This is our competitive advantage and why our game will be the a quantum leap for RTS. And we also plan to apply this same design philosophy to other elements of the game.
these already exists. AOE has multiple resources type, tradable and resources nodes are all over the map, and have multiple winning conditions. Northgard has a pretty interesting mix of RTS and 4x and city builder mechanics, again with multiple winning conditions and different resouce nodes. (same with dune spice war) COH has 3 resources and a capture the point style of gaining resources, destructive environment that matters. Most new upcoming new RTS have top bar abilities with different ways to generate the points to cast the abilities. grey goo has the most weird build mechanics in any RTS game imo.
Personally I like where all new RTS are going, (except Stormgate, not a fan of creep camps). zerospace has high yield node dropping over the map every once a while, with XP tower for faction upgrades (not units) and top bar abilities that have anti snowball mechanics (gained through units dying) gate of pyre's global abilities require you to fight over securing nodes, with easier macro.
On April 20 2024 22:45 qwerty4w wrote: Whether SC2 is a failure is depend on what the supposed goal is, to prove the RTS genre is worthy of a lot of investment at that time? It's a failure like other RTSs around that time like C&C3 and Supreme Commander.
Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
How big do you want a game to be? IIRC it was in the top 10 selling PC games of all time with WoL, you can still find games in seconds to this day, it’s supported a pretty vibrant eSports scene for a decade+
Most games would kill for those sales and long-term interest
Yeah that's my point. I was just being sarcastic that some here think sc2 was a failure and caused the decline in RTS.
Does it has anything to do with my point? Blizzard started making Warcraft 3 shortly after vanilla StarCraft, and StarCraft 2 shortly after Frozen Throne. The same didn't happen after SC2, it didn't prove their RTS dev team is worthy of keeping. It's likely far less profitable than their TCG, FPS, MMORPG and looter ARPG. SC2 being the last well-funded and well-marketed RTS for a long time (Relic RTSs after DOW2 are all very half-baked at release) because business people don't think RTS is worthy of investment anymore, including Blizzard themselves.
Yes because unless you have a saviour complex and hoping sc2 is the one, it shouldn't be seen as anything but a success. It is still one of the most successful RTS game ever released.
Doesn't mean it can recapture all the players that have gone to MOBA nor it can create a market that ain't there.
Going back to my point, I can safely say anyone thinking sc2 is a failure can have no meaningful contribution. By all matrix it is the last great RTS and even indie or AA studios dont even try to compete pretty much says it all. The genre is profitable, it's just sc2 and 1 or 2 others already captured majority % of the market.
It was commercially a succes. But how can it be a true succes if it's predecessor has better gameplay?
Do you people have no memory of how shitty the game release was? How bad b.net 2.0 was? Everything about sc2 was pretty damn bad if you compare it to sc1 and wc3. It took years and years before people could create meaningful communities around the game and then discord took over lol, there was just nothing in place with bnet 2.0 It was a ladder matchmaking simulator with 0 social functions.
The gameplay, of course it's arguable and pretty subjective.. But even nowadays sc1 , a 25 year old game with almost zero post-development, creates better games. Go watch Snow vs Soulkey and compare it to shitty sc2 a moving + spellcasting. And people worked on this game for 10+ years after release and there were 2 major expansion packs and massive support for the game.
Except everywhere outside Korea, sc2 has a larger playerbase and viewership. Gameplay itself isn't the end all be all, quite a few of fps are better than COD, FF14 is better than WOW. Winning spirit (RIP) Is better than FIFA. SF alpha 3 is generally regarded as the best game in the franchise.
So no, I disagree with pretty much everything you say and not relevant at this point. BW couldn't even stood up against WC3 at most SEA pub in just less than a year.
It didn't even capture most of what audience lost to MOBA or SC2 dying scene. AOE2 actually captured quite a bit of players when AOE4 struggled at the beginning.
Aoe2 got an epic remake and a proper remaster. BW still has more players than aoe2 btw. But yeah, it's because of Korea.
BW got a graphic update, but unfortunately that's about it. Everything else is pretty much worse than the original and unfortunately if you aren't korean, the quality of experience is a lot lower because of the peer 2 peer networking resulting in lag games for most of the world.
It's unfair to compare aoe2, which got one of the best remasters of all time, to bw. Back in the day, BW had a far larger playerbase than aoe2. Even though SC2 isn't technically as good gameplay wise, it has a massive scene of esports, players, casters, orgs, and at this point 12+ years history.
The problem here really is, is that sc2 wasn't bad enough. It wasn't good enough to demolish BW and make fans of BW no longer long for that game, but it also wasn't bad enough that a new generation would turn away from it and go play a 25 year old game instead with bad infrastructure and a tough learning curve. Aoe2 never had that problem. Aoe2 is kinda like BW if SC2 never came out. It had 20 years to organically grow and then got a two remasters, first a 2013 HD remake and then the 2019 full remaster which is amazing, aoe4 wasn't a thing till 2021 and then the entire scene had established itself already. BW got it's rugged pulled from under it brutally by the whole blizzard/kespa thing and then sc2 was artificially kept afloat and pumped up massively by millions of dollars and investments and 3 expansion packs. Despite all that, it still came back and is now the biggest game in Korea after league of legends for stream viewership. When all said and done, sc2 cant live up to the legacy of starcraft and it still isn't better than BW after all that time, money, effort, and development pumped into it.
On April 20 2024 22:45 qwerty4w wrote: Whether SC2 is a failure is depend on what the supposed goal is, to prove the RTS genre is worthy of a lot of investment at that time? It's a failure like other RTSs around that time like C&C3 and Supreme Commander.
Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
How big do you want a game to be? IIRC it was in the top 10 selling PC games of all time with WoL, you can still find games in seconds to this day, it’s supported a pretty vibrant eSports scene for a decade+
Most games would kill for those sales and long-term interest
Yeah that's my point. I was just being sarcastic that some here think sc2 was a failure and caused the decline in RTS.
Does it has anything to do with my point? Blizzard started making Warcraft 3 shortly after vanilla StarCraft, and StarCraft 2 shortly after Frozen Throne. The same didn't happen after SC2, it didn't prove their RTS dev team is worthy of keeping. It's likely far less profitable than their TCG, FPS, MMORPG and looter ARPG. SC2 being the last well-funded and well-marketed RTS for a long time (Relic RTSs after DOW2 are all very half-baked at release) because business people don't think RTS is worthy of investment anymore, including Blizzard themselves.
Yes because unless you have a saviour complex and hoping sc2 is the one, it shouldn't be seen as anything but a success. It is still one of the most successful RTS game ever released.
Doesn't mean it can recapture all the players that have gone to MOBA nor it can create a market that ain't there.
Going back to my point, I can safely say anyone thinking sc2 is a failure can have no meaningful contribution. By all matrix it is the last great RTS and even indie or AA studios dont even try to compete pretty much says it all. The genre is profitable, it's just sc2 and 1 or 2 others already captured majority % of the market.
It was commercially a succes. But how can it be a true succes if it's predecessor has better gameplay?
Do you people have no memory of how shitty the game release was? How bad b.net 2.0 was? Everything about sc2 was pretty damn bad if you compare it to sc1 and wc3. It took years and years before people could create meaningful communities around the game and then discord took over lol, there was just nothing in place with bnet 2.0 It was a ladder matchmaking simulator with 0 social functions.
The gameplay, of course it's arguable and pretty subjective.. But even nowadays sc1 , a 25 year old game with almost zero post-development, creates better games. Go watch Snow vs Soulkey and compare it to shitty sc2 a moving + spellcasting. And people worked on this game for 10+ years after release and there were 2 major expansion packs and massive support for the game.
Except everywhere outside Korea, sc2 has a larger playerbase and viewership. Gameplay itself isn't the end all be all, quite a few of fps are better than COD, FF14 is better than WOW. Winning spirit (RIP) Is better than FIFA. SF alpha 3 is generally regarded as the best game in the franchise.
So no, I disagree with pretty much everything you say and not relevant at this point. BW couldn't even stood up against WC3 at most SEA pub in just less than a year.
It didn't even capture most of what audience lost to MOBA or SC2 dying scene. AOE2 actually captured quite a bit of players when AOE4 struggled at the beginning.
Aoe2 got an epic remake and a proper remaster. BW still has more players than aoe2 btw. But yeah, it's because of Korea.
BW got a graphic update, but unfortunately that's about it. Everything else is pretty much worse than the original and unfortunately if you aren't korean, the quality of experience is a lot lower because of the peer 2 peer networking resulting in lag games for most of the world.
It's unfair to compare aoe2, which got one of the best remasters of all time, to bw. Back in the day, BW had a far larger playerbase than aoe2. Even though SC2 isn't technically as good gameplay wise, it has a massive scene of esports, players, casters, orgs, and at this point 12+ years history.
The problem here really is, is that sc2 wasn't bad enough. It wasn't good enough to demolish BW and make fans of BW no longer long for that game, but it also wasn't bad enough that a new generation would turn away from it and go play a 25 year old game instead with bad infrastructure and a tough learning curve. Aoe2 never had that problem. Aoe2 is kinda like BW if SC2 never came out. It had 20 years to organically grow and then got a two remasters, first a 2013 HD remake and then the 2019 full remaster which is amazing, aoe4 wasn't a thing till 2021 and then the entire scene had established itself already. BW got it's rugged pulled from under it brutally by the whole blizzard/kespa thing and then sc2 was artificially kept afloat and pumped up massively by millions of dollars and investments and 3 expansion packs. But when all said and done, it cant live up to the legacy of starcraft and it still isn't better than BW after all that time, money, effort, and development pumped into it.
BW didn't just have organic growth, BW had a multiple years long scene with very few competitions. (If any)
AOE2 scene lasted because how good it is, there's only been ever one serious contender, Empire Earth.
BW would have never caught on if it was released today, let alone SC1. Especially if it weren't released by blizzard.
Hard cap unit selection on a massive battlefield that have 200 unit max supply all over the map, no worker/unit queue, poor pathing, terrible unbalanced maps, terrible unit AI etc. (Don't tell me you want to fix Goliath ai)
Meanwhile classic AOE2 would have done just as fine, because it was an extremely refined game in every area.
And again since we are talking about future of RTS, I don't see why we need to constantly be stuck at BW being the best game to follow, when it wouldn't have succeeded today (even in Korea)
On April 21 2024 14:59 Crimthand wrote: As for singleplayer RTS vs multiplayer RTS, I am not saying one would be more popular than the other. But so far, all RTS games have been made to be single player games, with a multiplayer mode tucked on. No game was designed from the ground to be multiplayer only. At least no game I am aware of. I am sure there could be some niche indie game that did. Of course less people are going to play the multiplayer mode if multiplayer is just a secondary game mode that is just spun off from the single player game mode.
But we have these devs talking about how it is their ambition to make a multiplayer 1vs1 RTS game. But then they just copy a single player RTS game, like SC BW, and strip away a bunch of stuff they call 'mundane', add QoL that reduce mass clicking because 'mass clicking isn't fun' and 'to free up more time for strategy'. While also adding no new innovations to gameplay. And then they say it is the next iteration of RTS.
To David Kim's credit though, he is literally the first person to at least talk about thinking about how game design affects multiplayer game states. And therefore strategy and decision making. This seems like the most basic idea, but I have never heard anyone in the SC2 development talk about this. And no one either for Stormgate.
I don't think it is necessary to have a complete different design for multiplayer focused RTS.
Of course it isn't necessary. You could copy SC BW as much as possible. Which by chance got a very good formula. But why not use the knowledge learned in 25 years of SC BW RTS about what makes 1vs1 multiplayer RTS fun to play or watch? Why not re-evaluate core gameplay design features that were decided upon for lore/setting/immersion reasons, and ask yourself if they are actually the best choice for getting the best 1vs1 RTS possible.
You could also just test it out. Make a simple RTS. And change some core elements about it, trying to find the best choice for 1vs1 play.
For example, is having 2 resources the best choice? With one being used more often, and each race having a few buildings and 1 unit which only uses resource A? Is that really the best? Is it better to have just 1 resource? Or should you have 2 resources that are not tiered, but work in parallel? Should there be transmutation between different resources? Or not at all. All these things were originally picked in C&C and WC & SC for lore reasons. Not even for single player gameplay reasons. How these choices would affect multiplayer was not even thought about.
I don't see Stormgate devs come out and say this "Hey, we have 150 combined years of RTS experience on our dev team. At the start, we had a brainstorm session about resource systems. And we specifically picked a system to give rich gameplay, multiple strategies. This is our system, so since we explained it, you can now appreciate how it can be superior to SC BW. But also mathematically validated this model to be superior with our game theory expert. We even put out a research paper on it. And we proved to ourselves by just playing our games internally that indeed this resource system is more fun. This is our competitive advantage and why our game will be the a quantum leap for RTS. And we also plan to apply this same design philosophy to other elements of the game.
these already exists. AOE has multiple resources type, tradable and resources nodes are all over the map, and have multiple winning conditions.
You literally aren't even reading. Why even respond? AoE were completely lore-based single player games. Who learned nothing from SC BW or competitive 1vs1. AoE is literally the opposite of what I am talking about. Just stop!
On April 21 2024 14:59 Crimthand wrote: As for singleplayer RTS vs multiplayer RTS, I am not saying one would be more popular than the other. But so far, all RTS games have been made to be single player games, with a multiplayer mode tucked on. No game was designed from the ground to be multiplayer only. At least no game I am aware of. I am sure there could be some niche indie game that did. Of course less people are going to play the multiplayer mode if multiplayer is just a secondary game mode that is just spun off from the single player game mode.
But we have these devs talking about how it is their ambition to make a multiplayer 1vs1 RTS game. But then they just copy a single player RTS game, like SC BW, and strip away a bunch of stuff they call 'mundane', add QoL that reduce mass clicking because 'mass clicking isn't fun' and 'to free up more time for strategy'. While also adding no new innovations to gameplay. And then they say it is the next iteration of RTS.
To David Kim's credit though, he is literally the first person to at least talk about thinking about how game design affects multiplayer game states. And therefore strategy and decision making. This seems like the most basic idea, but I have never heard anyone in the SC2 development talk about this. And no one either for Stormgate.
I don't think it is necessary to have a complete different design for multiplayer focused RTS.
Of course it isn't necessary. You could copy SC BW as much as possible. Which by chance got a very good formula. But why not use the knowledge learned in 25 years of SC BW RTS about what makes 1vs1 multiplayer RTS fun to play or watch? Why not re-evaluate core gameplay design features that were decided upon for lore/setting/immersion reasons, and ask yourself if they are actually the best choice for getting the best 1vs1 RTS possible.
You could also just test it out. Make a simple RTS. And change some core elements about it, trying to find the best choice for 1vs1 play.
For example, is having 2 resources the best choice? With one being used more often, and each race having a few buildings and 1 unit which only uses resource A? Is that really the best? Is it better to have just 1 resource? Or should you have 2 resources that are not tiered, but work in parallel? Should there be transmutation between different resources? Or not at all. All these things were originally picked in C&C and WC & SC for lore reasons. Not even for single player gameplay reasons. How these choices would affect multiplayer was not even thought about.
I don't see Stormgate devs come out and say this "Hey, we have 150 combined years of RTS experience on our dev team. At the start, we had a brainstorm session about resource systems. And we specifically picked a system to give rich gameplay, multiple strategies. This is our system, so since we explained it, you can now appreciate how it can be superior to SC BW. But also mathematically validated this model to be superior with our game theory expert. We even put out a research paper on it. And we proved to ourselves by just playing our games internally that indeed this resource system is more fun. This is our competitive advantage and why our game will be the a quantum leap for RTS. And we also plan to apply this same design philosophy to other elements of the game.
these already exists. AOE has multiple resources type, tradable and resources nodes are all over the map, and have multiple winning conditions.
You literally aren't even reading. Why even respond? AoE were completely lore-based single player games. Who learned nothing from SC BW or competitive 1vs1. AoE is literally the opposite of what I am talking about. Just stop!
i won't disagree, I don't understand why we need to be concerned about whether the resources are tied to lore or not. Like what's your concern about it and how would not lore-based make it better? why we should care if the engine in f-zero is lore accurate or not.
On April 21 2024 14:59 Crimthand wrote: As for singleplayer RTS vs multiplayer RTS, I am not saying one would be more popular than the other. But so far, all RTS games have been made to be single player games, with a multiplayer mode tucked on. No game was designed from the ground to be multiplayer only. At least no game I am aware of. I am sure there could be some niche indie game that did. Of course less people are going to play the multiplayer mode if multiplayer is just a secondary game mode that is just spun off from the single player game mode.
But we have these devs talking about how it is their ambition to make a multiplayer 1vs1 RTS game. But then they just copy a single player RTS game, like SC BW, and strip away a bunch of stuff they call 'mundane', add QoL that reduce mass clicking because 'mass clicking isn't fun' and 'to free up more time for strategy'. While also adding no new innovations to gameplay. And then they say it is the next iteration of RTS.
To David Kim's credit though, he is literally the first person to at least talk about thinking about how game design affects multiplayer game states. And therefore strategy and decision making. This seems like the most basic idea, but I have never heard anyone in the SC2 development talk about this. And no one either for Stormgate.
I don't think it is necessary to have a complete different design for multiplayer focused RTS.
Of course it isn't necessary. You could copy SC BW as much as possible. Which by chance got a very good formula. But why not use the knowledge learned in 25 years of SC BW RTS about what makes 1vs1 multiplayer RTS fun to play or watch? Why not re-evaluate core gameplay design features that were decided upon for lore/setting/immersion reasons, and ask yourself if they are actually the best choice for getting the best 1vs1 RTS possible.
You could also just test it out. Make a simple RTS. And change some core elements about it, trying to find the best choice for 1vs1 play.
For example, is having 2 resources the best choice? With one being used more often, and each race having a few buildings and 1 unit which only uses resource A? Is that really the best? Is it better to have just 1 resource? Or should you have 2 resources that are not tiered, but work in parallel? Should there be transmutation between different resources? Or not at all. All these things were originally picked in C&C and WC & SC for lore reasons. Not even for single player gameplay reasons. How these choices would affect multiplayer was not even thought about.
I don't see Stormgate devs come out and say this "Hey, we have 150 combined years of RTS experience on our dev team. At the start, we had a brainstorm session about resource systems. And we specifically picked a system to give rich gameplay, multiple strategies. This is our system, so since we explained it, you can now appreciate how it can be superior to SC BW. But also mathematically validated this model to be superior with our game theory expert. We even put out a research paper on it. And we proved to ourselves by just playing our games internally that indeed this resource system is more fun. This is our competitive advantage and why our game will be the a quantum leap for RTS. And we also plan to apply this same design philosophy to other elements of the game.
these already exists. AOE has multiple resources type, tradable and resources nodes are all over the map, and have multiple winning conditions.
You literally aren't even reading. Why even respond? AoE were completely lore-based single player games. Who learned nothing from SC BW or competitive 1vs1. AoE is literally the opposite of what I am talking about. Just stop!
i won't disagree, I don't understand why we need to be concerned about whether the resources are tied to lore or not. Like what's your concerned about it. why we should care if the engine in f-zero is lore accurate or not.
What?! How can you just not get this. You are designing a game. You either design a game based on what makes sense inside your lore. Or you design a game based on what gives the best gameplay. I know you don't care. You are an idiot. That's well established now. You either add resources based on: "Ok to build buildings, we need wood, and stone. Wood grows in forests all over the place. Stone in quarries with are further away and more rare. And a house needs more wood than stone. And to build units, we need food. We can collect food from berry bushes, or from schools of fishes in that river, or from hunting game."
Great! You have a game. But the way your game plays in 1vs1 is decided completely randomly. If your game is fun to play or not in 1vs1 multiplayer is completely random. You have no vision of how an RTS should play or why it is fun You just haphazardly stitch together what appears to make sense.
In contrast, you can decide this. "Ok, we need a basic resource. And resources need to be collected by a worker unit. Then, we need two other types of resources. One is collected further away by the same worker unit. And one should be collected by a specialized worker unit. This because it gives strategies and emergent gameplay. Ok, now we decide on what lore to add to this. Resource 1 is energy. And it is collected from magma pools. You either can collect the rough magma at a slow rate, or build a building on top of it, and collect it at a faster rate because now you can use 3 workers on 1 patch instead of 2. Then, we need to collect metal ores. These are always at points outside the base of the player. Because that gives strategy. Then the last resource is some form of crystal. And it is so hard, you need a special worker for it.
OK, let's playtest this basic setup and see if that makes sense for giving exciting rich 1vs1 play. Oh, turns out it doesn't. We need to put the iron ore closer to the base. And the crystal ore can be futher away, but let's have that one collect in bursts, rather than steady income. Yes, that works. Now the game is more fun. Ok, great. Now let's apply the same thinking to the basic units."
On April 20 2024 22:45 qwerty4w wrote: Whether SC2 is a failure is depend on what the supposed goal is, to prove the RTS genre is worthy of a lot of investment at that time? It's a failure like other RTSs around that time like C&C3 and Supreme Commander.
Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
How big do you want a game to be? IIRC it was in the top 10 selling PC games of all time with WoL, you can still find games in seconds to this day, it’s supported a pretty vibrant eSports scene for a decade+
Most games would kill for those sales and long-term interest
Yeah that's my point. I was just being sarcastic that some here think sc2 was a failure and caused the decline in RTS.
Does it has anything to do with my point? Blizzard started making Warcraft 3 shortly after vanilla StarCraft, and StarCraft 2 shortly after Frozen Throne. The same didn't happen after SC2, it didn't prove their RTS dev team is worthy of keeping. It's likely far less profitable than their TCG, FPS, MMORPG and looter ARPG. SC2 being the last well-funded and well-marketed RTS for a long time (Relic RTSs after DOW2 are all very half-baked at release) because business people don't think RTS is worthy of investment anymore, including Blizzard themselves.
Yes because unless you have a saviour complex and hoping sc2 is the one, it shouldn't be seen as anything but a success. It is still one of the most successful RTS game ever released.
Doesn't mean it can recapture all the players that have gone to MOBA nor it can create a market that ain't there.
Going back to my point, I can safely say anyone thinking sc2 is a failure can have no meaningful contribution. By all matrix it is the last great RTS and even indie or AA studios dont even try to compete pretty much says it all. The genre is profitable, it's just sc2 and 1 or 2 others already captured majority % of the market.
It was commercially a succes. But how can it be a true succes if it's predecessor has better gameplay?
Do you people have no memory of how shitty the game release was? How bad b.net 2.0 was? Everything about sc2 was pretty damn bad if you compare it to sc1 and wc3. It took years and years before people could create meaningful communities around the game and then discord took over lol, there was just nothing in place with bnet 2.0 It was a ladder matchmaking simulator with 0 social functions.
The gameplay, of course it's arguable and pretty subjective.. But even nowadays sc1 , a 25 year old game with almost zero post-development, creates better games. Go watch Snow vs Soulkey and compare it to shitty sc2 a moving + spellcasting. And people worked on this game for 10+ years after release and there were 2 major expansion packs and massive support for the game.
Except everywhere outside Korea, sc2 has a larger playerbase and viewership. Gameplay itself isn't the end all be all, quite a few of fps are better than COD, FF14 is better than WOW. Winning spirit (RIP) Is better than FIFA. SF alpha 3 is generally regarded as the best game in the franchise.
So no, I disagree with pretty much everything you say and not relevant at this point. BW couldn't even stood up against WC3 at most SEA pub in just less than a year.
It didn't even capture most of what audience lost to MOBA or SC2 dying scene. AOE2 actually captured quite a bit of players when AOE4 struggled at the beginning.
Aoe2 got an epic remake and a proper remaster. BW still has more players than aoe2 btw. But yeah, it's because of Korea.
BW got a graphic update, but unfortunately that's about it. Everything else is pretty much worse than the original and unfortunately if you aren't korean, the quality of experience is a lot lower because of the peer 2 peer networking resulting in lag games for most of the world.
It's unfair to compare aoe2, which got one of the best remasters of all time, to bw. Back in the day, BW had a far larger playerbase than aoe2. Even though SC2 isn't technically as good gameplay wise, it has a massive scene of esports, players, casters, orgs, and at this point 12+ years history.
The problem here really is, is that sc2 wasn't bad enough. It wasn't good enough to demolish BW and make fans of BW no longer long for that game, but it also wasn't bad enough that a new generation would turn away from it and go play a 25 year old game instead with bad infrastructure and a tough learning curve. Aoe2 never had that problem. Aoe2 is kinda like BW if SC2 never came out. It had 20 years to organically grow and then got a two remasters, first a 2013 HD remake and then the 2019 full remaster which is amazing, aoe4 wasn't a thing till 2021 and then the entire scene had established itself already. BW got it's rugged pulled from under it brutally by the whole blizzard/kespa thing and then sc2 was artificially kept afloat and pumped up massively by millions of dollars and investments and 3 expansion packs. But when all said and done, it cant live up to the legacy of starcraft and it still isn't better than BW after all that time, money, effort, and development pumped into it.
BW didn't just have organic growth, BW had a multiple years long scene with very few competitions. (If any)
AOE2 scene lasted because how good it is, there's only been ever one serious contender, Empire Earth.
BW would have never caught on if it was released today, let alone SC1. Especially if it weren't released by blizzard.
Hard cap unit selection on a massive battlefield that have 200 unit max supply all over the map, no worker/unit queue, poor pathing, terrible unbalanced maps, terrible unit AI etc. (Don't tell me you want to fix Goliath ai)
Meanwhile classic AOE2 would have done just as fine, because it was an extremely refined game in every area.
And again since we are talking about future of RTS, I don't see why we need to constantly be stuck at BW being the best game to follow, when it wouldn't have succeeded today (even in Korea)
You dont understand one game, and seem to be a big fan of aoe2. I dont know much about aoe2, but likely more than you know about BW, and I will say it's a great game. I'll drop the discussion from here, I said what I wanted to say.
On April 21 2024 14:59 Crimthand wrote: As for singleplayer RTS vs multiplayer RTS, I am not saying one would be more popular than the other. But so far, all RTS games have been made to be single player games, with a multiplayer mode tucked on. No game was designed from the ground to be multiplayer only. At least no game I am aware of. I am sure there could be some niche indie game that did. Of course less people are going to play the multiplayer mode if multiplayer is just a secondary game mode that is just spun off from the single player game mode.
But we have these devs talking about how it is their ambition to make a multiplayer 1vs1 RTS game. But then they just copy a single player RTS game, like SC BW, and strip away a bunch of stuff they call 'mundane', add QoL that reduce mass clicking because 'mass clicking isn't fun' and 'to free up more time for strategy'. While also adding no new innovations to gameplay. And then they say it is the next iteration of RTS.
To David Kim's credit though, he is literally the first person to at least talk about thinking about how game design affects multiplayer game states. And therefore strategy and decision making. This seems like the most basic idea, but I have never heard anyone in the SC2 development talk about this. And no one either for Stormgate.
I don't think it is necessary to have a complete different design for multiplayer focused RTS.
Of course it isn't necessary. You could copy SC BW as much as possible. Which by chance got a very good formula. But why not use the knowledge learned in 25 years of SC BW RTS about what makes 1vs1 multiplayer RTS fun to play or watch? Why not re-evaluate core gameplay design features that were decided upon for lore/setting/immersion reasons, and ask yourself if they are actually the best choice for getting the best 1vs1 RTS possible.
You could also just test it out. Make a simple RTS. And change some core elements about it, trying to find the best choice for 1vs1 play.
For example, is having 2 resources the best choice? With one being used more often, and each race having a few buildings and 1 unit which only uses resource A? Is that really the best? Is it better to have just 1 resource? Or should you have 2 resources that are not tiered, but work in parallel? Should there be transmutation between different resources? Or not at all. All these things were originally picked in C&C and WC & SC for lore reasons. Not even for single player gameplay reasons. How these choices would affect multiplayer was not even thought about.
I don't see Stormgate devs come out and say this "Hey, we have 150 combined years of RTS experience on our dev team. At the start, we had a brainstorm session about resource systems. And we specifically picked a system to give rich gameplay, multiple strategies. This is our system, so since we explained it, you can now appreciate how it can be superior to SC BW. But also mathematically validated this model to be superior with our game theory expert. We even put out a research paper on it. And we proved to ourselves by just playing our games internally that indeed this resource system is more fun. This is our competitive advantage and why our game will be the a quantum leap for RTS. And we also plan to apply this same design philosophy to other elements of the game.
these already exists. AOE has multiple resources type, tradable and resources nodes are all over the map, and have multiple winning conditions.
You literally aren't even reading. Why even respond? AoE were completely lore-based single player games. Who learned nothing from SC BW or competitive 1vs1. AoE is literally the opposite of what I am talking about. Just stop!
i won't disagree, I don't understand why we need to be concerned about whether the resources are tied to lore or not. Like what's your concerned about it. why we should care if the engine in f-zero is lore accurate or not.
What?! How can you just not get this. You are designing a game. You either design a game based on what makes sense inside your lore. Or you design a game based on what gives the best gameplay. I know you don't care. You are an idiot. That's well established now. You either add resources based on: "Ok to build buildings, we need wood, and stone. Wood grows in forests all over the place. Stone in quarries with are further away and more rare. And a house needs more wood than stone. And to build units, we need food. We can collect food from berry bushes, or from schools of fishes in that river, or from hunting game."
Great! You have a game. But the way your game plays in 1vs1 is decided completely randomly. If your game is fun to play or not in 1vs1 multiplayer is completely random. You have no vision of how an RTS should play or why it is fun You just haphazardly stitch together what appears to make sense.
In contrast, you can decide this. "Ok, we need a basic resource. And resources need to be collected by a worker unit. Then, we need two other types of resources. One is collected further away by the same worker unit. And one should be collected by a specialized worker unit. This because it gives strategies and emergent gameplay. Ok, now we decide on what lore to add to this. Resource 1 is energy. And it is collected from magma pools. You either can collect the rough magma at a slow rate, or build a building on top of it, and collect it at a faster rate because now you can use 3 workers on 1 patch instead of 2. Then, we need to collect metal ores. These are always at points outside the base of the player. Because that gives strategy. Then the last resource is some form of crystal. And it is so hard, you need a special worker for it.
OK, let's playtest this basic setup and see if that makes sense for giving exciting rich 1vs1 play. Oh, turns out it doesn't. We need to put the iron ore closer to the base. And the crystal ore can be futher away, but let's have that one collect in bursts, rather than steady income. Yes, that works. Now the game is more fun. Ok, great. Now let's apply the same thinking to the basic units."
You can throw insults all you want but it's all just random babbling, because quite literally all the game already has these in mind.
Do you seriously think AOE has fishing/hunting/farming/bush/sheep because it's more lore accurate and not because each of them adds to the gameplay? Why do you think sheep is spread around and needs to be found and herd back to base? They quite literally removed coal from AOE3 even though that would be lore accurate? Where's gun powder then? What about water supply? Are they not needed to be lore accurate?
In AOE series, where resource nodes are, how spread out they are actually matters a ton in the gameplay, they aren't there for the sake of lore accurate, how delusion is that.
Or more importantly, that's pretty much the fundamental design for all RTS games, because resource nodes, distance and what they are for (and if even needed to be included at all) matters
Why do you think zerospace has their standard resources node in base, while high yield are dropped around the map and also xp towers. What's the lore behind it?
Or how resources are gathered in COH, do you think it is lore accurate for an army unit to capture a point to get munitions and fuel without a factory on top to extract and refine and build resources?
On April 20 2024 23:10 KingzTig wrote: [quote] Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
How big do you want a game to be? IIRC it was in the top 10 selling PC games of all time with WoL, you can still find games in seconds to this day, it’s supported a pretty vibrant eSports scene for a decade+
Most games would kill for those sales and long-term interest
Yeah that's my point. I was just being sarcastic that some here think sc2 was a failure and caused the decline in RTS.
Does it has anything to do with my point? Blizzard started making Warcraft 3 shortly after vanilla StarCraft, and StarCraft 2 shortly after Frozen Throne. The same didn't happen after SC2, it didn't prove their RTS dev team is worthy of keeping. It's likely far less profitable than their TCG, FPS, MMORPG and looter ARPG. SC2 being the last well-funded and well-marketed RTS for a long time (Relic RTSs after DOW2 are all very half-baked at release) because business people don't think RTS is worthy of investment anymore, including Blizzard themselves.
Yes because unless you have a saviour complex and hoping sc2 is the one, it shouldn't be seen as anything but a success. It is still one of the most successful RTS game ever released.
Doesn't mean it can recapture all the players that have gone to MOBA nor it can create a market that ain't there.
Going back to my point, I can safely say anyone thinking sc2 is a failure can have no meaningful contribution. By all matrix it is the last great RTS and even indie or AA studios dont even try to compete pretty much says it all. The genre is profitable, it's just sc2 and 1 or 2 others already captured majority % of the market.
It was commercially a succes. But how can it be a true succes if it's predecessor has better gameplay?
Do you people have no memory of how shitty the game release was? How bad b.net 2.0 was? Everything about sc2 was pretty damn bad if you compare it to sc1 and wc3. It took years and years before people could create meaningful communities around the game and then discord took over lol, there was just nothing in place with bnet 2.0 It was a ladder matchmaking simulator with 0 social functions.
The gameplay, of course it's arguable and pretty subjective.. But even nowadays sc1 , a 25 year old game with almost zero post-development, creates better games. Go watch Snow vs Soulkey and compare it to shitty sc2 a moving + spellcasting. And people worked on this game for 10+ years after release and there were 2 major expansion packs and massive support for the game.
Except everywhere outside Korea, sc2 has a larger playerbase and viewership. Gameplay itself isn't the end all be all, quite a few of fps are better than COD, FF14 is better than WOW. Winning spirit (RIP) Is better than FIFA. SF alpha 3 is generally regarded as the best game in the franchise.
So no, I disagree with pretty much everything you say and not relevant at this point. BW couldn't even stood up against WC3 at most SEA pub in just less than a year.
It didn't even capture most of what audience lost to MOBA or SC2 dying scene. AOE2 actually captured quite a bit of players when AOE4 struggled at the beginning.
Aoe2 got an epic remake and a proper remaster. BW still has more players than aoe2 btw. But yeah, it's because of Korea.
BW got a graphic update, but unfortunately that's about it. Everything else is pretty much worse than the original and unfortunately if you aren't korean, the quality of experience is a lot lower because of the peer 2 peer networking resulting in lag games for most of the world.
It's unfair to compare aoe2, which got one of the best remasters of all time, to bw. Back in the day, BW had a far larger playerbase than aoe2. Even though SC2 isn't technically as good gameplay wise, it has a massive scene of esports, players, casters, orgs, and at this point 12+ years history.
The problem here really is, is that sc2 wasn't bad enough. It wasn't good enough to demolish BW and make fans of BW no longer long for that game, but it also wasn't bad enough that a new generation would turn away from it and go play a 25 year old game instead with bad infrastructure and a tough learning curve. Aoe2 never had that problem. Aoe2 is kinda like BW if SC2 never came out. It had 20 years to organically grow and then got a two remasters, first a 2013 HD remake and then the 2019 full remaster which is amazing, aoe4 wasn't a thing till 2021 and then the entire scene had established itself already. BW got it's rugged pulled from under it brutally by the whole blizzard/kespa thing and then sc2 was artificially kept afloat and pumped up massively by millions of dollars and investments and 3 expansion packs. But when all said and done, it cant live up to the legacy of starcraft and it still isn't better than BW after all that time, money, effort, and development pumped into it.
BW didn't just have organic growth, BW had a multiple years long scene with very few competitions. (If any)
AOE2 scene lasted because how good it is, there's only been ever one serious contender, Empire Earth.
BW would have never caught on if it was released today, let alone SC1. Especially if it weren't released by blizzard.
Hard cap unit selection on a massive battlefield that have 200 unit max supply all over the map, no worker/unit queue, poor pathing, terrible unbalanced maps, terrible unit AI etc. (Don't tell me you want to fix Goliath ai)
Meanwhile classic AOE2 would have done just as fine, because it was an extremely refined game in every area.
And again since we are talking about future of RTS, I don't see why we need to constantly be stuck at BW being the best game to follow, when it wouldn't have succeeded today (even in Korea)
You dont understand one game, and seem to be a big fan of aoe2. I dont know much about aoe2, but likely more than you know about BW, and I will say it's a great game. I'll drop the discussion from here, I said what I wanted to say.
I would be very shocked if you truely think SC1 at v1.0 would have done well if it was released today.
It's a great game because it has been developing under a greenhouse and a striving RTS scene back then, and also without an indie scene that would have removed the popularity of custom maps.
It's also why once WC3 was released, most pubs you go uld have already moved on from BW, except SK. And that was before Dota took over everything.
That's the harsh reality most BW players don't see and clinging on their game as if the entire gaming environment is still the same.
On April 20 2024 22:45 qwerty4w wrote: Whether SC2 is a failure is depend on what the supposed goal is, to prove the RTS genre is worthy of a lot of investment at that time? It's a failure like other RTSs around that time like C&C3 and Supreme Commander.
Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
How big do you want a game to be? IIRC it was in the top 10 selling PC games of all time with WoL, you can still find games in seconds to this day, it’s supported a pretty vibrant eSports scene for a decade+
Most games would kill for those sales and long-term interest
Yeah that's my point. I was just being sarcastic that some here think sc2 was a failure and caused the decline in RTS.
Does it has anything to do with my point? Blizzard started making Warcraft 3 shortly after vanilla StarCraft, and StarCraft 2 shortly after Frozen Throne. The same didn't happen after SC2, it didn't prove their RTS dev team is worthy of keeping. It's likely far less profitable than their TCG, FPS, MMORPG and looter ARPG. SC2 being the last well-funded and well-marketed RTS for a long time (Relic RTSs after DOW2 are all very half-baked at release) because business people don't think RTS is worthy of investment anymore, including Blizzard themselves.
Yes because unless you have a saviour complex and hoping sc2 is the one, it shouldn't be seen as anything but a success. It is still one of the most successful RTS game ever released.
Doesn't mean it can recapture all the players that have gone to MOBA nor it can create a market that ain't there.
Going back to my point, I can safely say anyone thinking sc2 is a failure can have no meaningful contribution. By all matrix it is the last great RTS and even indie or AA studios dont even try to compete pretty much says it all. The genre is profitable, it's just sc2 and 1 or 2 others already captured majority % of the market.
It was commercially a succes. But how can it be a true succes if it's predecessor has better gameplay?
Do you people have no memory of how shitty the game release was? How bad b.net 2.0 was? Everything about sc2 was pretty damn bad if you compare it to sc1 and wc3. It took years and years before people could create meaningful communities around the game and then discord took over lol, there was just nothing in place with bnet 2.0 It was a ladder matchmaking simulator with 0 social functions.
The gameplay, of course it's arguable and pretty subjective.. But even nowadays sc1 , a 25 year old game with almost zero post-development, creates better games. Go watch Snow vs Soulkey and compare it to shitty sc2 a moving + spellcasting. And people worked on this game for 10+ years after release and there were 2 major expansion packs and massive support for the game.
Except everywhere outside Korea, sc2 has a larger playerbase and viewership. Gameplay itself isn't the end all be all, quite a few of fps are better than COD, FF14 is better than WOW. Winning spirit (RIP) Is better than FIFA. SF alpha 3 is generally regarded as the best game in the franchise.
So no, I disagree with pretty much everything you say and not relevant at this point. BW couldn't even stood up against WC3 at most SEA pub in just less than a year.
It didn't even capture most of what audience lost to MOBA or SC2 dying scene. AOE2 actually captured quite a bit of players when AOE4 struggled at the beginning.
Aoe2 got an epic remake and a proper remaster. BW still has more players than aoe2 btw. But yeah, it's because of Korea.
BW got a graphic update, but unfortunately that's about it. Everything else is pretty much worse than the original and unfortunately if you aren't korean, the quality of experience is a lot lower because of the peer 2 peer networking resulting in lag games for most of the world.
It's unfair to compare aoe2, which got one of the best remasters of all time, to bw. Back in the day, BW had a far larger playerbase than aoe2. Even though SC2 isn't technically as good gameplay wise, it has a massive scene of esports, players, casters, orgs, and at this point 12+ years history.
The problem here really is, is that sc2 wasn't bad enough. It wasn't good enough to demolish BW and make fans of BW no longer long for that game, but it also wasn't bad enough that a new generation would turn away from it and go play a 25 year old game instead with bad infrastructure and a tough learning curve. Aoe2 never had that problem. Aoe2 is kinda like BW if SC2 never came out. It had 20 years to organically grow and then got a two remasters, first a 2013 HD remake and then the 2019 full remaster which is amazing, aoe4 wasn't a thing till 2021 and then the entire scene had established itself already. BW got it's rugged pulled from under it brutally by the whole blizzard/kespa thing and then sc2 was artificially kept afloat and pumped up massively by millions of dollars and investments and 3 expansion packs. But when all said and done, it cant live up to the legacy of starcraft and it still isn't better than BW after all that time, money, effort, and development pumped into it.
...
BW would have never caught on if it was released today, let alone SC1. Especially if it weren't released by blizzard.
Hard cap unit selection on a massive battlefield that have 200 unit max supply all over the map, no worker/unit queue, poor pathing, terrible unbalanced maps, terrible unit AI etc. (Don't tell me you want to fix Goliath ai)
Meanwhile classic AOE2 would have done just as fine, because it was an extremely refined game in every area.
...
Your complaints about classic sc1 are mostly valid, but you are looking at classic AOE2 through rose-tinted glasses. The game had some serious issues back in the day (and still does to some extent). Stuff like farms felt like a chore - you had to manually remake them every time they expired. In a game where you would have anywhere from 15 to 60 farms in the mid to late-game, there were a whole lot of clicks required. (even more so for civs that were missing some farm upgrades). Age of kings introduced the (15?) farm queue in the mill. The auto-seed option was introduced waaay later (definitive edition I believe). Then you had some annoying stuff like attack move not being a feature in classic AOE2. I don't even remember how many expansions later it was added to the game... But the down right infuriating things about classic AOE2 are hands down pathing and unit AI. Melee units in a clump will basically not engage enemy units if left alone. Out of 10 aggroed units 2 will engage the nearest enemy target while the remaining ones will run around getting slaughtered while trying to reach a unreachable unit. The problem only gets worse the more melee units you have in your clump. And the issue will regularly re-appear in an engagement because after killing a unit, your melee unit is not unlikely to start running around in circles because it decided to target a unit that it cannot reach instead of the closest reachable enemy. This targeting problem is still present in the current iteration of AOE2... I assume that hardcore AOE2 players are used to it and have some techniques to mitigate the issue, but for somebody who is used to 1a2a3a in BW and have all units actually attack, the AOE2 ai feels horrible. Oh, and pathing in AOE2 has its own set of extremely frustrating issues. The regrouping that AOE2 always does when you try to move more than a single unit is absolutely horrible. Telling your units to move forward and seeing them move backwards instead so they can regroup, would make anyone want to pull their hair out. Depending on how your units are spread, you may get to see some unit move what feels like half a screen in the wrong direction before starting to move in the correct one. And even when your units are already in a clump, they will regroup backwards every time you give them a move order... and even when you don't give them further orders, they will randomly regroup backwards while walking forward... AOE2 is a great game but complaing about starcraft pathing and ai while calling AOE2 "extremely refined" is not only biased but simply outrageous.
On April 20 2024 23:10 KingzTig wrote: [quote] Yeah, I guess that shows how far the genre has fallen after BW and WC3 lost their audience to Dota. Sc2 just isn't enough even being the largest RTS title for more than a decade.
How big do you want a game to be? IIRC it was in the top 10 selling PC games of all time with WoL, you can still find games in seconds to this day, it’s supported a pretty vibrant eSports scene for a decade+
Most games would kill for those sales and long-term interest
Yeah that's my point. I was just being sarcastic that some here think sc2 was a failure and caused the decline in RTS.
Does it has anything to do with my point? Blizzard started making Warcraft 3 shortly after vanilla StarCraft, and StarCraft 2 shortly after Frozen Throne. The same didn't happen after SC2, it didn't prove their RTS dev team is worthy of keeping. It's likely far less profitable than their TCG, FPS, MMORPG and looter ARPG. SC2 being the last well-funded and well-marketed RTS for a long time (Relic RTSs after DOW2 are all very half-baked at release) because business people don't think RTS is worthy of investment anymore, including Blizzard themselves.
Yes because unless you have a saviour complex and hoping sc2 is the one, it shouldn't be seen as anything but a success. It is still one of the most successful RTS game ever released.
Doesn't mean it can recapture all the players that have gone to MOBA nor it can create a market that ain't there.
Going back to my point, I can safely say anyone thinking sc2 is a failure can have no meaningful contribution. By all matrix it is the last great RTS and even indie or AA studios dont even try to compete pretty much says it all. The genre is profitable, it's just sc2 and 1 or 2 others already captured majority % of the market.
It was commercially a succes. But how can it be a true succes if it's predecessor has better gameplay?
Do you people have no memory of how shitty the game release was? How bad b.net 2.0 was? Everything about sc2 was pretty damn bad if you compare it to sc1 and wc3. It took years and years before people could create meaningful communities around the game and then discord took over lol, there was just nothing in place with bnet 2.0 It was a ladder matchmaking simulator with 0 social functions.
The gameplay, of course it's arguable and pretty subjective.. But even nowadays sc1 , a 25 year old game with almost zero post-development, creates better games. Go watch Snow vs Soulkey and compare it to shitty sc2 a moving + spellcasting. And people worked on this game for 10+ years after release and there were 2 major expansion packs and massive support for the game.
Except everywhere outside Korea, sc2 has a larger playerbase and viewership. Gameplay itself isn't the end all be all, quite a few of fps are better than COD, FF14 is better than WOW. Winning spirit (RIP) Is better than FIFA. SF alpha 3 is generally regarded as the best game in the franchise.
So no, I disagree with pretty much everything you say and not relevant at this point. BW couldn't even stood up against WC3 at most SEA pub in just less than a year.
It didn't even capture most of what audience lost to MOBA or SC2 dying scene. AOE2 actually captured quite a bit of players when AOE4 struggled at the beginning.
Aoe2 got an epic remake and a proper remaster. BW still has more players than aoe2 btw. But yeah, it's because of Korea.
BW got a graphic update, but unfortunately that's about it. Everything else is pretty much worse than the original and unfortunately if you aren't korean, the quality of experience is a lot lower because of the peer 2 peer networking resulting in lag games for most of the world.
It's unfair to compare aoe2, which got one of the best remasters of all time, to bw. Back in the day, BW had a far larger playerbase than aoe2. Even though SC2 isn't technically as good gameplay wise, it has a massive scene of esports, players, casters, orgs, and at this point 12+ years history.
The problem here really is, is that sc2 wasn't bad enough. It wasn't good enough to demolish BW and make fans of BW no longer long for that game, but it also wasn't bad enough that a new generation would turn away from it and go play a 25 year old game instead with bad infrastructure and a tough learning curve. Aoe2 never had that problem. Aoe2 is kinda like BW if SC2 never came out. It had 20 years to organically grow and then got a two remasters, first a 2013 HD remake and then the 2019 full remaster which is amazing, aoe4 wasn't a thing till 2021 and then the entire scene had established itself already. BW got it's rugged pulled from under it brutally by the whole blizzard/kespa thing and then sc2 was artificially kept afloat and pumped up massively by millions of dollars and investments and 3 expansion packs. But when all said and done, it cant live up to the legacy of starcraft and it still isn't better than BW after all that time, money, effort, and development pumped into it.
...
BW would have never caught on if it was released today, let alone SC1. Especially if it weren't released by blizzard.
Hard cap unit selection on a massive battlefield that have 200 unit max supply all over the map, no worker/unit queue, poor pathing, terrible unbalanced maps, terrible unit AI etc. (Don't tell me you want to fix Goliath ai)
Meanwhile classic AOE2 would have done just as fine, because it was an extremely refined game in every area.
...
Your complaints about classic sc1 are mostly valid, but you are looking at classic AOE2 through rose-tinted glasses. The game had some serious issues back in the day (and still does to some extent). Stuff like farms felt like a chore - you had to manually remake them every time they expired. In a game where you would have anywhere from 15 to 60 farms in the mid to late-game, there were a whole lot of clicks required. (even more so for civs that were missing some farm upgrades). Age of kings introduced the (15?) farm queue in the mill. The auto-seed option was introduced waaay later (definitive edition I believe). Then you had some annoying stuff like attack move not being a feature in classic AOE2. I don't even remember how many expansions later it was added to the game... But the down right infuriating things about classic AOE2 are hands down pathing and unit AI. Melee units in a clump will basically not engage enemy units if left alone. Out of 10 aggroed units 2 will engage the nearest enemy target while the remaining ones will run around getting slaughtered while trying to reach a unreachable unit. The problem only gets worse the more melee units you have in your clump. And the issue will regularly re-appear in an engagement because after killing a unit, your melee unit is not unlikely to start running around in circles because it decided to target a unit that it cannot reach instead of the closest reachable enemy. This targeting problem is still present in the current iteration of AOE2... I assume that hardcore AOE2 players are used to it and have some techniques to mitigate the issue, but for somebody who is used to 1a2a3a in BW and have all units actually attack, the AOE2 ai feels horrible. Oh, and pathing in AOE2 has its own set of extremely frustrating issues. The regrouping that AOE2 always does when you try to move more than a single unit is absolutely horrible. Telling your units to move forward and seeing them move backwards instead so they can regroup, would make anyone want to pull their hair out. Depending on how your units are spread, you may get to see some unit move what feels like half a screen in the wrong direction before starting to move in the correct one. And even when your units are already in a clump, they will regroup backwards every time you give them a move order... and even when you don't give them further orders, they will randomly regroup backwards while walking forward... AOE2 is a great game but complaing about starcraft pathing and ai while calling AOE2 "extremely refined" is not only biased but simply outrageous.
oh I don't doubt you at all.
AFAIK the biggest improvement for HD remasters weren't these fixes, but actually the server play. I didn't get both the HD remaster nor remake, I got AOM, AOE3 and eventually AOE4 instead
back in the days, we just played the game as is, and not competitive at all. I didn't even learn about esports scene until Dota.
Why we picked AOE2 over BW was simple, BW had plenty of issues with units stuck on ramp, and incredibly frustrating to even get units to do basic tasks, not to mention the difficulty to do macro cycles. It was an easy choice for us, given aoe2 never had these issues at our level, i actually don't recall any game out of the thousands of games where some units blocked the entire reinforcement.
AOE2 and RA2 were THE RTS everyone played in Asia in my era (the 90s), most of us then moved to WC3, and eventually 90% of us stayed at Dota. out of all of us (say 20 of us), only me who caught on to SC2.
But perhaps this ties into the most important point I want to bring out.
We don't live in that era anymore, the modern gaming era changed how gamers approach games. It's so much about minmaxing, optimized best build, not just in competitive gaming but also single player or PvE that don't matter. (even helldivers 2)
Decades ago we went to arcade for street fighter and for us the level of competition is local, now it's all worldwide and that imo is why 99% players drop after first month in most fighters. imo that's why RTS face a similar issue, it's too competitive by nature.
And even fortnite players are now saying the exact same thing, it's too much about ranking and showing off.
Not sure if you would call this also through rose-tinted, but imo this is why RTS has fallen off the cliff.
Rather than we need to find out what bw did right, I would say its even more important to understand why moba succeed even if it is just as competitive by nature, and filled with salty and toxicity with most stuck in elo hell. I recall years ago people called it a phrase, but given the success of LOL, obviously there's so much more to it.
Mechanical difficulty creates more room for different styles and makes the game more artistic. It also creates more magic moments for a spectator who plays the game and understands the difficulty. Perhaps the monotonous basic things could be simplified and the spell casting and unit movement could be made more complex. Time management is one of the most interesting things about Starcraft. 1v1 competitive modes just aren't that appealing to play for most people.
On April 21 2024 14:59 Crimthand wrote: As for singleplayer RTS vs multiplayer RTS, I am not saying one would be more popular than the other. But so far, all RTS games have been made to be single player games, with a multiplayer mode tucked on. No game was designed from the ground to be multiplayer only. At least no game I am aware of. I am sure there could be some niche indie game that did. Of course less people are going to play the multiplayer mode if multiplayer is just a secondary game mode that is just spun off from the single player game mode.
But we have these devs talking about how it is their ambition to make a multiplayer 1vs1 RTS game. But then they just copy a single player RTS game, like SC BW, and strip away a bunch of stuff they call 'mundane', add QoL that reduce mass clicking because 'mass clicking isn't fun' and 'to free up more time for strategy'. While also adding no new innovations to gameplay. And then they say it is the next iteration of RTS.
To David Kim's credit though, he is literally the first person to at least talk about thinking about how game design affects multiplayer game states. And therefore strategy and decision making. This seems like the most basic idea, but I have never heard anyone in the SC2 development talk about this. And no one either for Stormgate.
I don't think it is necessary to have a complete different design for multiplayer focused RTS.
Of course it isn't necessary. You could copy SC BW as much as possible. Which by chance got a very good formula. But why not use the knowledge learned in 25 years of SC BW RTS about what makes 1vs1 multiplayer RTS fun to play or watch? Why not re-evaluate core gameplay design features that were decided upon for lore/setting/immersion reasons, and ask yourself if they are actually the best choice for getting the best 1vs1 RTS possible.
You could also just test it out. Make a simple RTS. And change some core elements about it, trying to find the best choice for 1vs1 play.
For example, is having 2 resources the best choice? With one being used more often, and each race having a few buildings and 1 unit which only uses resource A? Is that really the best? Is it better to have just 1 resource? Or should you have 2 resources that are not tiered, but work in parallel? Should there be transmutation between different resources? Or not at all. All these things were originally picked in C&C and WC & SC for lore reasons. Not even for single player gameplay reasons. How these choices would affect multiplayer was not even thought about.
I don't see Stormgate devs come out and say this "Hey, we have 150 combined years of RTS experience on our dev team. At the start, we had a brainstorm session about resource systems. And we specifically picked a system to give rich gameplay, multiple strategies. This is our system, so since we explained it, you can now appreciate how it can be superior to SC BW. But also mathematically validated this model to be superior with our game theory expert. We even put out a research paper on it. And we proved to ourselves by just playing our games internally that indeed this resource system is more fun. This is our competitive advantage and why our game will be the a quantum leap for RTS. And we also plan to apply this same design philosophy to other elements of the game.
these already exists. AOE has multiple resources type, tradable and resources nodes are all over the map, and have multiple winning conditions.
You literally aren't even reading. Why even respond? AoE were completely lore-based single player games. Who learned nothing from SC BW or competitive 1vs1. AoE is literally the opposite of what I am talking about. Just stop!
i won't disagree, I don't understand why we need to be concerned about whether the resources are tied to lore or not. Like what's your concerned about it. why we should care if the engine in f-zero is lore accurate or not.
What?! How can you just not get this. You are designing a game. You either design a game based on what makes sense inside your lore. Or you design a game based on what gives the best gameplay.
...imma stop the quote there because, already, no. This is a false dichotomy.
You design both in tandem because you have multiple designers all working on the same thing as a team toward a specific vision for the game.
Take some of the dumb units in the Red Alert series, like war bears or laser dolphins. These weren't put into the game because Red Alert 3 was designed either as a 'lore-based' game (this isn't a thing) or as a 'best gameplay' game. They were put into the game because at some point some designer had them as ideas, and then other designers along the way did shit like make them balanced and/or fit the 'lore' and/or fit the game's themes etc etc etc. They're in that game because a bunch of designers decided the idea -could- work, and then a bunch of designers worked on and directly signed off on it. There's (ideally) a singular vision that the game was going for, and a bunch of minds teamed up to fit ideas to that vision and prune ideas that didn't.
The idea that you're arguing that anyone else is stupid with this as your line of reasoning is pretty special. Given your last bunch of posts, I feel strongly that you have no idea what you're talking about most of the time, and are pulling a lot of it straight out of your ass. Do better!
On April 20 2024 03:13 NonY wrote: Actually looking forward to this game a lot. As much as I want to just have a remix of StarCraft to kinda relive the things I enjoyed, I think there’s a huge opportunity to make a new kind of strategy game that is gonna be really fun. And probably my biggest concern for stormgate is that if you try to be like StarCraft but stretch it too much into something else, you end up in a weird spot. So I’m getting excited about games that are changing more drastically and not trying to be a spiritual successor to StarCraft. Of course I hope stormgate pulls it off but I’ve come around to being more excited about more experimental and fresh designs.
Same, I believe in my man David Kim!! This was the RTS I had the most faith for and have been waiting to see. RTS is still young and underdeveloped as a genre. Blizzard RTS defined the genre for a long time, but there are surely other kinds of RTS that can work and be even more fun. This new game sounds exciting.
Also i was wondering if the UI shown in the documentary was from the game itself. It probably is, though it still looks overly simplistic. Maybe they removed the text and some other stuff? What is the Battle Overview for, for example? Are you deciding how to position troops even before the game starts?
On April 21 2024 14:59 Crimthand wrote: As for singleplayer RTS vs multiplayer RTS, I am not saying one would be more popular than the other. But so far, all RTS games have been made to be single player games, with a multiplayer mode tucked on. No game was designed from the ground to be multiplayer only. At least no game I am aware of. I am sure there could be some niche indie game that did. Of course less people are going to play the multiplayer mode if multiplayer is just a secondary game mode that is just spun off from the single player game mode.
But we have these devs talking about how it is their ambition to make a multiplayer 1vs1 RTS game. But then they just copy a single player RTS game, like SC BW, and strip away a bunch of stuff they call 'mundane', add QoL that reduce mass clicking because 'mass clicking isn't fun' and 'to free up more time for strategy'. While also adding no new innovations to gameplay. And then they say it is the next iteration of RTS.
To David Kim's credit though, he is literally the first person to at least talk about thinking about how game design affects multiplayer game states. And therefore strategy and decision making. This seems like the most basic idea, but I have never heard anyone in the SC2 development talk about this. And no one either for Stormgate.
I don't think it is necessary to have a complete different design for multiplayer focused RTS.
Of course it isn't necessary. You could copy SC BW as much as possible. Which by chance got a very good formula. But why not use the knowledge learned in 25 years of SC BW RTS about what makes 1vs1 multiplayer RTS fun to play or watch? Why not re-evaluate core gameplay design features that were decided upon for lore/setting/immersion reasons, and ask yourself if they are actually the best choice for getting the best 1vs1 RTS possible.
You could also just test it out. Make a simple RTS. And change some core elements about it, trying to find the best choice for 1vs1 play.
For example, is having 2 resources the best choice? With one being used more often, and each race having a few buildings and 1 unit which only uses resource A? Is that really the best? Is it better to have just 1 resource? Or should you have 2 resources that are not tiered, but work in parallel? Should there be transmutation between different resources? Or not at all. All these things were originally picked in C&C and WC & SC for lore reasons. Not even for single player gameplay reasons. How these choices would affect multiplayer was not even thought about.
I don't see Stormgate devs come out and say this "Hey, we have 150 combined years of RTS experience on our dev team. At the start, we had a brainstorm session about resource systems. And we specifically picked a system to give rich gameplay, multiple strategies. This is our system, so since we explained it, you can now appreciate how it can be superior to SC BW. But also mathematically validated this model to be superior with our game theory expert. We even put out a research paper on it. And we proved to ourselves by just playing our games internally that indeed this resource system is more fun. This is our competitive advantage and why our game will be the a quantum leap for RTS. And we also plan to apply this same design philosophy to other elements of the game.
these already exists. AOE has multiple resources type, tradable and resources nodes are all over the map, and have multiple winning conditions.
You literally aren't even reading. Why even respond? AoE were completely lore-based single player games. Who learned nothing from SC BW or competitive 1vs1. AoE is literally the opposite of what I am talking about. Just stop!
i won't disagree, I don't understand why we need to be concerned about whether the resources are tied to lore or not. Like what's your concerned about it. why we should care if the engine in f-zero is lore accurate or not.
What?! How can you just not get this. You are designing a game. You either design a game based on what makes sense inside your lore. Or you design a game based on what gives the best gameplay.
...imma stop the quote there because, already, no. This is a false dichotomy.
You design both in tandem because you have multiple designers all working on the same thing as a team toward a specific vision for the game.
Take some of the dumb units in the Red Alert series, like war bears or laser dolphins. These weren't put into the game because Red Alert 3 was designed either as a 'lore-based' game (this isn't a thing) or as a 'best gameplay' game. They were put into the game because at some point some designer had them as ideas, and then other designers along the way did shit like make them balanced and/or fit the 'lore' and/or fit the game's themes etc etc etc. They're in that game because a bunch of designers decided the idea -could- work, and then a bunch of designers worked on and directly signed off on it. There's (ideally) a singular vision that the game was going for, and a bunch of minds teamed up to fit ideas to that vision and prune ideas that didn't.
The idea that you're arguing that anyone else is stupid with this as your line of reasoning is pretty special. Given your last bunch of posts, I feel strongly that you have no idea what you're talking about most of the time, and are pulling a lot of it straight out of your ass. Do better!
Oh My Fucking God. The sheer audacity, flaunting stupidity, and arrogance from someone who registered here in 2014 to talk about Dota2. This Is Shocking.
Yes, dolphins with lasers are completely lore-based. And it can't have been a tandem because competitive 1vs1 play wasn't really a thing. It only evolved into that years later with SC BW in South Korea.
Yes, developers are that stupid. I was here during SC2 development. Which is when you probably were still shitting your diapers. And people on the SC2 dev team were utter idiots when it came to competitive RTS. They tried to get it. They were smart and competent otherwise. But they just didn't understand. The best example is when they changed the Phoenix to make it kite more, after player feedback.
Things couldn't have been designed in tandem because even on the SC2 dev team, there was compete ignorance.
the amount of folks in here that cant distinguish their opinion from solid facts, and even worse keep insulting everyone that doesnt share their takes makes it really hard to have a nice discussion in here. its not like you can convince anyone by yelling in any capacity
lol that guy went way too far with the insults. But to be fair, he was insulted first and he has a point in his arguments. And no one was really engaging with them seriously
When someone repeats "we talked about it here on TL in 2006!" as if this means anything at all, as if opinions of one player group on a forum have anything to do with how games are made or should be made - you know this person better be ignored, as they're full of themselves, full of feeling of self-importance. It's just a bunch of opinions from a bunch of dudes (and dudettes) on a forum from 18 years ago, nothing more. Nobody outside of this specific group cares - or had ever cared. Really.
I.e. when someone claims their opinion is a fact - you know this person better be ignored.
On April 20 2024 03:13 NonY wrote: Actually looking forward to this game a lot. As much as I want to just have a remix of StarCraft to kinda relive the things I enjoyed, I think there’s a huge opportunity to make a new kind of strategy game that is gonna be really fun. And probably my biggest concern for stormgate is that if you try to be like StarCraft but stretch it too much into something else, you end up in a weird spot. So I’m getting excited about games that are changing more drastically and not trying to be a spiritual successor to StarCraft. Of course I hope stormgate pulls it off but I’ve come around to being more excited about more experimental and fresh designs.
Same, I believe in my man David Kim!! This was the RTS I had the most faith for and have been waiting to see. RTS is still young and underdeveloped as a genre. Blizzard RTS defined the genre for a long time, but there are surely other kinds of RTS that can work and be even more fun. This new game sounds exciting.
Also i was wondering if the UI shown in the documentary was from the game itself. It probably is, though it still looks overly simplistic. Maybe they removed the text and some other stuff? What is the Battle Overview for, for example? Are you deciding how to position troops even before the game starts?
He gets a load of shit but honestly I think David Kim and the team did a pretty tremendous job improving SC2 and balancing it off a base that was always fundamentally flawed IMO (and many others). SC2 may be the best game I’ve ever played where I consider so much of its core design calls to be misjudged, to an almost miraculous degree.
Unless I’m very much mistaken, but I don’t think it was David Kim who gave us Warpgate, or terrible terrible damage or any of those things. Intrigued to see what the team he’s with now can do if they avoid some of those core pitfalls.
On April 22 2024 15:52 uummpaa wrote: the amount of folks in here that cant distinguish their opinion from solid facts, and even worse keep insulting everyone that doesnt share their takes makes it really hard to have a nice discussion in here. its not like you can convince anyone by yelling in any capacity
there are no absolutes in game design
This. It would be nice if folks could argue on the basis of personal preference rather than ‘these are the immutable laws of RTS you’re an idiot if you disagree’
Yes, developers are that stupid. I was here during SC2 development. Which is when you probably were still shitting your diapers.
That guy was here during sc2 development while y'all were "shittin ya diapas", but only made an account this month. That's some real credibility right there.
the amount of folks in here that cant distinguish their opinion from solid facts, and even worse keep insulting everyone that doesnt share their takes makes it really hard to have a nice discussion in here. its not like you can convince anyone by yelling in any capacity
Most threads seem to degenerate into a pointless argument between 2 or more people instead of any meaningful discussion about the content at hand. Could this POSSIBLY be why forums were phased out as the primary source of engagement between interneters?!! I'm beginning to think...maybe.
Sorry, I forget what we were talking about. Is this the US politics thread or the ESL spring regionals thread?
Yes, developers are that stupid. I was here during SC2 development. Which is when you probably were still shitting your diapers.
That guy was here during sc2 development while y'all were "shittin ya diapas", but only made an account this month. That's some real credibility right there.
the amount of folks in here that cant distinguish their opinion from solid facts, and even worse keep insulting everyone that doesnt share their takes makes it really hard to have a nice discussion in here. its not like you can convince anyone by yelling in any capacity
Most threads seem to degenerate into a pointless argument between 2 or more people instead of any meaningful discussion about the content at hand. Could this POSSIBLY be why forums were phased out as the primary source of engagement between interneters?!! I'm beginning to think...maybe.
Sorry, I forget what we were talking about. Is this the US politics thread or the ESL spring regionals thread?
Ah yes, the successors to forums are much more harmonious and productive places eh?
Yes, developers are that stupid. I was here during SC2 development. Which is when you probably were still shitting your diapers.
That guy was here during sc2 development while y'all were "shittin ya diapas", but only made an account this month. That's some real credibility right there.
the amount of folks in here that cant distinguish their opinion from solid facts, and even worse keep insulting everyone that doesnt share their takes makes it really hard to have a nice discussion in here. its not like you can convince anyone by yelling in any capacity
Most threads seem to degenerate into a pointless argument between 2 or more people instead of any meaningful discussion about the content at hand. Could this POSSIBLY be why forums were phased out as the primary source of engagement between interneters?!! I'm beginning to think...maybe.
Sorry, I forget what we were talking about. Is this the US politics thread or the ESL spring regionals thread?
Ah yes, the successors to forums are much more harmonious and productive places eh?
Yeah reddit is all cute flying pigs and butterflies everywhere <3
There were some interesting points in Crimthands posts ealier. But they got down a rabbithole with no coming back rather quick
Other than personal preferences and definitons of vague concepts there's not much to talk about at the moment, so far we only know the game is marketed as requiring less mechanical skill and memorization to play at a reasonable level.
It remains to be seen whether there is much of an unexplored market for RTS with lower mechanical demand than mainstream ones like StarCraft and Age of Empires. Previous attempts in this direction such as Eugen Systems' R.U.S.E. didn't take off and only got some cult following at best, but commercial performance of a game is depend on far more factors than just general design direction. Uncapped Games' RTS seems to be at least well-funded by Tencent, which is an advantage over other RTSs in development.
On April 22 2024 19:38 RogerChillingworth wrote: Sorry, I forget what we were talking about. Is this the US politics thread or the ESL spring regionals thread?
On April 20 2024 03:13 NonY wrote: Actually looking forward to this game a lot. As much as I want to just have a remix of StarCraft to kinda relive the things I enjoyed, I think there’s a huge opportunity to make a new kind of strategy game that is gonna be really fun. And probably my biggest concern for stormgate is that if you try to be like StarCraft but stretch it too much into something else, you end up in a weird spot. So I’m getting excited about games that are changing more drastically and not trying to be a spiritual successor to StarCraft. Of course I hope stormgate pulls it off but I’ve come around to being more excited about more experimental and fresh designs.
Same, I believe in my man David Kim!! This was the RTS I had the most faith for and have been waiting to see. RTS is still young and underdeveloped as a genre. Blizzard RTS defined the genre for a long time, but there are surely other kinds of RTS that can work and be even more fun. This new game sounds exciting.
Also i was wondering if the UI shown in the documentary was from the game itself. It probably is, though it still looks overly simplistic. Maybe they removed the text and some other stuff? What is the Battle Overview for, for example? Are you deciding how to position troops even before the game starts?
He gets a load of shit but honestly I think David Kim and the team did a pretty tremendous job improving SC2 and balancing it off a base that was always fundamentally flawed IMO (and many others). SC2 may be the best game I’ve ever played where I consider so much of its core design calls to be misjudged, to an almost miraculous degree.
Unless I’m very much mistaken, but I don’t think it was David Kim who gave us Warpgate, or terrible terrible damage or any of those things. Intrigued to see what the team he’s with now can do if they avoid some of those core pitfalls.
I'm pretty sure he had at least his hand in "terrible, terrible damage" and warp gates. His Linkedin profile states he worked on SC2 since 2007:
Game DesignerGame Designer Nov. 2007–Juli 2010 · 2 Jahre 9 MonateNov. 2007–Juli 2010 · 2 Jahre 9 Monate
Game Designer on Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty
- Game balance before and after the release of the game. - Units, abilities, structures design - Designed majority of the melee maps released in Wings of Liberty
Likely didn't have the last say of course but he definitely worked on this stuff and considering his position around and after launch, I think it's likely he had quite some impact internally before launch.
Yes, developers are that stupid. I was here during SC2 development. Which is when you probably were still shitting your diapers.
That guy was here during sc2 development while y'all were "shittin ya diapas", but only made an account this month. That's some real credibility right there.
the amount of folks in here that cant distinguish their opinion from solid facts, and even worse keep insulting everyone that doesnt share their takes makes it really hard to have a nice discussion in here. its not like you can convince anyone by yelling in any capacity
Most threads seem to degenerate into a pointless argument between 2 or more people instead of any meaningful discussion about the content at hand. Could this POSSIBLY be why forums were phased out as the primary source of engagement between interneters?!! I'm beginning to think...maybe.
Sorry, I forget what we were talking about. Is this the US politics thread or the ESL spring regionals thread?
Completely off-opic: Forums are not "out". The "discussions" were just moved to other plattforms which emphasize the problems you describe. Reddit is huge but all it does is to create badly moderated echo-chambers. I would argue the way reddit sorts posts alone makes a good discussion almost impossible.
I think TL does a fairly good job moderating. It's hard to do, especially when you don't exactly have the man-power in relation to the amount of posts created nor a community which values a good discussion culture very highly.
I don't watch any e-sport that I don't play myself, or have at least played in the past. I've tried to watch League and DOTA2 and can't really appreciate anything. I played a lot of CS beta to 1.6 when it was new and a little of CS Source, and I can't even really watch CS:GO, personally.
I don't think I'd be interested in ever watching an esport of a game I don't play. But, if a game is really good I'd likely be playing it, right?
SC2: as someone who has been around on TL.net since I think 2003, I do in fact remember people being generally happy here that SC2 was getting "macro mechanics". MBS and automine were thought to negatively impact the game by making it too easy, and "we" basically did ask Blizz for some way for players to differentiate their macro, which is how those mechanics made it in. I remember the feedback was mostly positive.
A few pages ago someone was saying how no one was asking for them (I'm paraphrasing) but that isn't how I remember it.
I could be wrong or mis-remembering, or maybe didn't get the full feel of everyone here, but if you asked me, that's how I would say I remember it. I've consistently visited TL.net for over 20 years straight. (Doesn't make me an expert or anything )
Just thought I'd chime in there... happy to be proven wrong, memory is a funny thing anyway.
On the game itself: the player feedback seems positive and the documentary was cool. In a game against a live opponent, there should always be a level of skill involved in determining who wins. If some "traditional RTS mechanics" are removed, I'm happy to keep an open mind and see what that looks like. (I note what Wax said, that he found his APM was just re-allocated, not that there wasn't anything to do).
On April 20 2024 03:13 NonY wrote: Actually looking forward to this game a lot. As much as I want to just have a remix of StarCraft to kinda relive the things I enjoyed, I think there’s a huge opportunity to make a new kind of strategy game that is gonna be really fun. And probably my biggest concern for stormgate is that if you try to be like StarCraft but stretch it too much into something else, you end up in a weird spot. So I’m getting excited about games that are changing more drastically and not trying to be a spiritual successor to StarCraft. Of course I hope stormgate pulls it off but I’ve come around to being more excited about more experimental and fresh designs.
Same, I believe in my man David Kim!! This was the RTS I had the most faith for and have been waiting to see. RTS is still young and underdeveloped as a genre. Blizzard RTS defined the genre for a long time, but there are surely other kinds of RTS that can work and be even more fun. This new game sounds exciting.
Also i was wondering if the UI shown in the documentary was from the game itself. It probably is, though it still looks overly simplistic. Maybe they removed the text and some other stuff? What is the Battle Overview for, for example? Are you deciding how to position troops even before the game starts?
He gets a load of shit but honestly I think David Kim and the team did a pretty tremendous job improving SC2 and balancing it off a base that was always fundamentally flawed IMO (and many others). SC2 may be the best game I’ve ever played where I consider so much of its core design calls to be misjudged, to an almost miraculous degree.
Unless I’m very much mistaken, but I don’t think it was David Kim who gave us Warpgate, or terrible terrible damage or any of those things. Intrigued to see what the team he’s with now can do if they avoid some of those core pitfalls.
Well he definitely gave us swarm hosts, and was somehow a rampant defender of them during HoTS when the community was begging for a rework (2 hour Swarmhost game era).
SC2's multiplayer state was atrocious towards the end of WoL and his response was to give us more free unit generators. All the units added during HotS and LotV under his lead were bad for the game, with the exception of ravagers I'd say. Oracles, liberators, and tempests are cool now but didn't end up in a good state until he was gone.
DK had a tough job having to wake up to thousands of raging gamers screaming his name in the bnet forums, he didn't deserve such hatred at all. But looking back, the game improved after he left. He really wasn't a good lead to balance the game, either he was clueless to what the game needed, or simply wasn't brave enough to make big changes and admit where things went wrong.
On April 23 2024 03:26 SoleSteeler wrote: My thoughts:
I don't watch any e-sport that I don't play myself, or have at least played in the past. I've tried to watch League and DOTA2 and can't really appreciate anything. I played a lot of CS beta to 1.6 when it was new and a little of CS Source, and I can't even really watch CS:GO, personally.
I don't think I'd be interested in ever watching an esport of a game I don't play. But, if a game is really good I'd likely be playing it, right?
SC2: as someone who has been around on TL.net since I think 2003, I do in fact remember people being generally happy here that SC2 was getting "macro mechanics". MBS and automine were thought to negatively impact the game by making it too easy, and "we" basically did ask Blizz for some way for players to differentiate their macro, which is how those mechanics made it in. I remember the feedback was mostly positive.
A few pages ago someone was saying how no one was asking for them (I'm paraphrasing) but that isn't how I remember it.
I could be wrong or mis-remembering, or maybe didn't get the full feel of everyone here, but if you asked me, that's how I would say I remember it. I've consistently visited TL.net for over 20 years straight. (Doesn't make me an expert or anything )
Just thought I'd chime in there... happy to be proven wrong, memory is a funny thing anyway.
On the game itself: the player feedback seems positive and the documentary was cool. In a game against a live opponent, there should always be a level of skill involved in determining who wins. If some "traditional RTS mechanics" are removed, I'm happy to keep an open mind and see what that looks like. (I note what Wax said, that he found his APM was just re-allocated, not that there wasn't anything to do).
I think Blizzard missed the point with MBS, automine and macromechanics. In BW, the more ahead you get economically, the harder things get to manage. This leaves you more vulnerable. The difficulty is in making this dynamic feel organic. The macromechanics were just slapped on top of a game that was designed without this philosophy in mind.
Yeah, the fans never asked for macro mechanics. Those are things Blizzard cane up with all by themselves. Yes, in response to criticism because of MBS, unlimited selection, smart cast, etc. It was their attempt to compromise. So it is ironic that now David Kim points to those in saying they need to be removed to 'free up more time for decision making'.
More importantly, this discussion came after people like Testie played the SC2 beta at some Blizzcon and the second or third thing he said was "they kinda ruined the game, it is all automated. They took away the fun." I wish someone had that interview. Before that, those issues were already raised by some on TL and battle.net. But when top players immediate reaction to first playing SC2 was exactly that, we knew those predictions we were making about SC2 were correct. Yeah Testie went kinda neonazi later on, but that's a different discussion.
And in this discussion, Tasteless also went to the higher ups like Dustin Browder to talk about this. That's why macro mechanics happened.
This was also way before David Kim was hired. Back then, Pillars was the lead balance designer. There is also a post on there by CowGoMoo explaining that basically no one on the SC2 dev team was able to play RTS games, except him and Pillars. And he was a SC BW player who worked mostly on WoW and didn't have any influence. But he and Pillars were beating everyone in their SC2 alpha builds.
Dayvie/David Kim was hired much later. Near the release date. Don't forget that Blizzard had been working on SC2 since 2003. Most things about the game, like the engine that is fundamentally not usable for RTS games, was made in those years. I am pretty sure no one on the dev team considered death balls at that point.
Look, this whole macro thing can be solved rather easily. The problem is that the perception is that at the lower levels, becoming better just means becoming better at macro. And that decision making like when to fight, when to expand, what build order to use, and which engagements to take is less important. This is somewhat true, but not completely. Generally, an army twice the size is twice the strength. So if you are really better at macroing, your army is just going to be bigger and you can just win. And if you have a SC BW style interface, you need to be a top player to macro well. Al you need to do is make very large armies weaker. That way, outmacroing your opponent is always giving you an edge. And you also don't remove it. It requires the same amount of clicks. And if you are a really good game dev, you can also make those clicks feel meaningful as well. But you aren't able to just mass scout and make a fool out of your opponent. Which means that if two players have a big difference in skill level, they still both need to consider more decision making game elements like army composition, when to expand, when to attack, how to take engagements, etc.
The argument that when going from D- to say C+, the most important thing to focus on is 'just keep your mineral low and don't get supply blocked' makes the game not so rewarding is fair. But this argument wasn't made like that by the pro MBS crowd or by Blizzard back in 2007-2010. And it does have solutions. But they are not adding macro mechanics. It took people like Blizzard and David Kim almost 15 years to realize that, though.
On April 23 2024 03:26 SoleSteeler wrote: My thoughts:
I don't watch any e-sport that I don't play myself, or have at least played in the past. I've tried to watch League and DOTA2 and can't really appreciate anything. I played a lot of CS beta to 1.6 when it was new and a little of CS Source, and I can't even really watch CS:GO, personally.
I don't think I'd be interested in ever watching an esport of a game I don't play. But, if a game is really good I'd likely be playing it, right?
SC2: as someone who has been around on TL.net since I think 2003, I do in fact remember people being generally happy here that SC2 was getting "macro mechanics". MBS and automine were thought to negatively impact the game by making it too easy, and "we" basically did ask Blizz for some way for players to differentiate their macro, which is how those mechanics made it in. I remember the feedback was mostly positive.
A few pages ago someone was saying how no one was asking for them (I'm paraphrasing) but that isn't how I remember it.
I could be wrong or mis-remembering, or maybe didn't get the full feel of everyone here, but if you asked me, that's how I would say I remember it. I've consistently visited TL.net for over 20 years straight. (Doesn't make me an expert or anything )
Just thought I'd chime in there... happy to be proven wrong, memory is a funny thing anyway.
On the game itself: the player feedback seems positive and the documentary was cool. In a game against a live opponent, there should always be a level of skill involved in determining who wins. If some "traditional RTS mechanics" are removed, I'm happy to keep an open mind and see what that looks like. (I note what Wax said, that he found his APM was just re-allocated, not that there wasn't anything to do).
I think Blizzard missed the point with MBS, automine and macromechanics. In BW, the more ahead you get economically, the harder things get to manage. This leaves you more vulnerable. The difficulty is in making this dynamic feel organic. The macromechanics were just slapped on top of a game that was designed without this philosophy in mind.
On April 23 2024 03:26 SoleSteeler wrote: My thoughts:
I don't watch any e-sport that I don't play myself, or have at least played in the past. I've tried to watch League and DOTA2 and can't really appreciate anything. I played a lot of CS beta to 1.6 when it was new and a little of CS Source, and I can't even really watch CS:GO, personally.
I don't think I'd be interested in ever watching an esport of a game I don't play. But, if a game is really good I'd likely be playing it, right?
SC2: as someone who has been around on TL.net since I think 2003, I do in fact remember people being generally happy here that SC2 was getting "macro mechanics". MBS and automine were thought to negatively impact the game by making it too easy, and "we" basically did ask Blizz for some way for players to differentiate their macro, which is how those mechanics made it in. I remember the feedback was mostly positive.
A few pages ago someone was saying how no one was asking for them (I'm paraphrasing) but that isn't how I remember it.
I could be wrong or mis-remembering, or maybe didn't get the full feel of everyone here, but if you asked me, that's how I would say I remember it. I've consistently visited TL.net for over 20 years straight. (Doesn't make me an expert or anything )
Just thought I'd chime in there... happy to be proven wrong, memory is a funny thing anyway.
On the game itself: the player feedback seems positive and the documentary was cool. In a game against a live opponent, there should always be a level of skill involved in determining who wins. If some "traditional RTS mechanics" are removed, I'm happy to keep an open mind and see what that looks like. (I note what Wax said, that he found his APM was just re-allocated, not that there wasn't anything to do).
Players' early impressions were that the game was too easy and too streamlined, yes. Browder's vision for SC2 was more about limitations being placed on units rather than players - stuff like the original Thor having a turn rate that was too slow to handle 4 Diamondbacks circling around it. But I think coming from Red Alert 2, he probably didn't have a complete grasp of what made BW so challenging in the macro department. David Kim, having worked at Relic with Mora who posts here, likely did. I remember players asking for additional macro complexity (usually proposing the removal of multiple building selection), and that was when "APM sinks" in the form of macro mechanics appeared. I think this pacified some posters since "Blizzard is listening!" but others expected that it wouldn't be enough because it was such a band-aid solution.
So in a way, I think that David Kim was sort of put in an impossible situation, having to simultaneously adhere to the director's vision of a very different style of SC game along with the players' expectation of tradition. Through that lens, I think the decisions that came with the expansions make more sense.
On April 23 2024 05:41 Excalibur_Z wrote: So in a way, I think that David Kim was sort of put in an impossible situation, having to simultaneously adhere to the director's vision of a very different style of SC game along with the players' expectation of tradition. Through that lens, I think the decisions that came with the expansions make more sense.
Not to mention David Kim took the lead much later into the game life, by that time the game dipped on views and player base against a game genre that, altough based on RTS micro mechanics, had made away with pretty much all of the macro ones.
MOBAs.
There's a reason we have been adding QoL changes like auto attacks on caster and stationary modes on observers to the game, it's artificial difficulty may have been appealing to the small crowd that liked hardcore RTS but was unwelcoming to basically everbody else.
On April 22 2024 16:04 Menkent wrote: lol that guy went way too far with the insults. But to be fair, he was insulted first and he has a point in his arguments. And no one was really engaging with them seriously
I genuinely struggle to see what their points actually are. They're buried in selfmade, poorly explained definitions (like "lore-centric") that make it impossible to engage with them seriously, because we can't even communicate with basic, understood terms. It's like trying to debate philosophy with someone, where one side is well-read and understands conventional terms, and the other has been personally living in plato's cave, writing their own philosophy books with their own esoteric conventional terms.
The fact that the response was to attack my credibility (and apparently go far enough in that effort to look up my profile?) suggests to me that there was no path that would lead to any kind of actual, reasonable discussion.
Besides, I joined TL in 2011 under a different account named after a unit in Dune 2, the first RTS I played, and played some time after I was done shitting diapers. I've also been a designer for a handful of games available on Steam, one of which is an RTS. None of that qualifies me to declare I could have done better than any current/modern RTS designers, but if the lad wants to have an actual credibility competition, I'm curious what they could even bring to the table.
All that said, I would be curious to hear what their actual points were.
I thought his posts and points were very clear. For example, C&C having a big truck harvesting fields of resources because of the novel Dune. And Warcraft having gold mines and forests. SC2 still had the same system. Deeper insights in gameplay didn't make the devs fine tune the resource systems for better 1vs1 gameplay. How can you say his point were poorly explained when they gave clear examples? And no one asked clarifying questions.
Maybe people here should have engaged with his points rather than insult him. They wrote very coherent posts with a rare level of proper grammar. Instead, you guys did what TL was famous for: baiting moderator action.
David Kim isn't to blame for the failure of SC2. He joined way later as a balance lead. As much as SC2 people whine about balance, poor balance was not anywhere near the problems that plagued SC2.
I would really say that if you weren't at least C+ level in SC BW, you should really be hesitant to voice opinions and mostly just listen to others.
Yeah i felt his posts were pretty understandable. There are different things you can prioritize when making your game, focusing more on the lore and immersion vs focusing more on what makes good gameplay. Ofc everything is a mix of both, but often times it can indeed be heavily skewed towards one over the other. And sometimes there is just not even much thought put into the resource system, like why exactly are there 1-2 types, etc.
Also, David Kim was like a semipro BW player when he was young (or at least like GM equivalent, some competent level). So he must have understood BW on a decent level and what made it fun.
Also, I know no one is exactly saying they aren't, but I actually love MULEs, Chronoboost, Larvae Inject. I feel they're both very fun abilities and don't feel tedious/unfun (other than maybe Larva Inject, but Zerg players tend to be people who find perfecting macro and mechanics more fun, so it is tailored a bit towards their taste). They feel powerful and meaningful (you can spam MULEs as often as you can early game, but later game you can conserve energy for mass scans or save it for when you take one of your opponent's expos and try to MULE spam it, for Chronoboost you can make cool timings and later game it does become harder to manage/use and you also want to conserve energy for Overcharge or Recall sometimes, and Larva Inject while the least meaningful does make things like mass ling/bling quite powerful and is very swarmy). I feel they were a great addition to the game and not at all a bad way to add some APM/macro mechanics to make up for MBS and stuff. It is a small but still significant way to inject skill expression. Missing a few seconds of muling, chronoboost, or larve inject did have an impact. (Though now larva inject is queue-able, which i think is OK since Zerg had a high APM requirement, though it is weird in that it goes against the original idea by becoming almost automated).
I would have to say that MULE and Chronoboost are one of the most fun things to me when playing Terran or Protoss. Trying to hit larva injects and using hotkeys to do it efficiently was also a bit fun when I used to play Zerg. Each ability also directly fit each race's focus, and I find that very cool and fun: Terran is army focused, and MULEs increase your income with limited bases so you can produce more army with less econ. Protoss is tech focused, so chronoboost helps compliment your powerful key tech timings. Zerg is economy focused, and larve inject allows you to drone up very quickly and then also be able to mass produce an army reactionary and with less production buildings.
So I don't really understand why even David Kim is criticizing these mechanics as not meaningful and not fun. You did still have to make a decision between MULE and Scans as Terran (and sometimes even call down supply for specific rushes, or if you're having trouble getting more bases then you can call down supply instead of MULEs which mine you out quicker), and what to Chronoboost as Toss and also whether to conserve energy for Recall or Photon Overcharge / Battery Overcharge. Only Larva Inject didn't really have much a decision behind it because you could make mass Queens, but we've seen times where harassing tumors and drones (like 2 rax reaper opening) actually leads to Queens not having enough Transfuse energy to defend, so there is still a meaningful tradeoff. I would agree though that mechanics like this can always be designed in a more ideal way and the abilities themselves could be better in ways.
On April 23 2024 08:38 Menkent wrote: I thought his posts and points were very clear. For example, C&C having a big truck harvesting fields of resources because of the novel Dune. And Warcraft having gold mines and forests. SC2 still had the same system. Deeper insights in gameplay didn't make the devs fine tune the resource systems for better 1vs1 gameplay. How can you say his point were poorly explained when they gave clear examples? And no one asked clarifying questions.
Maybe people here should have engaged with his points rather than insult him. They wrote very coherent posts with a rare level of proper grammar. Instead, you guys did what TL was famous for: baiting moderator action.
David Kim isn't to blame for the failure of SC2. He joined way later as a balance lead. As much as SC2 people whine about balance, poor balance was not anywhere near the problems that plagued SC2.
I would really say that if you weren't at least C+ level in SC BW, you should really be hesitant to voice opinions and mostly just listen to others.
Decent grammar in service of meandering treatises isn’t all that impressive. And on TL proper grammar ain’t all that rare.
Interesting observations and analysis interspersed throughout aye, but I had little idea what the real overarching point they were trying to make was. I would have liked to have delved a bit into that via civil queries as I was intrigued, but alas that’ll have to wait until they’re off the naughty step.
As to the bolded, no that’s an utterly preposterous bar to any topic other than ‘how do I get somewhat competent at 1v1 Brood War?’
On April 23 2024 08:38 Menkent wrote: I thought his posts and points were very clear. For example, C&C having a big truck harvesting fields of resources because of the novel Dune. And Warcraft having gold mines and forests. SC2 still had the same system. Deeper insights in gameplay didn't make the devs fine tune the resource systems for better 1vs1 gameplay. How can you say his point were poorly explained when they gave clear examples? And no one asked clarifying questions.
Maybe people here should have engaged with his points rather than insult him. They wrote very coherent posts with a rare level of proper grammar. Instead, you guys did what TL was famous for: baiting moderator action.
David Kim isn't to blame for the failure of SC2. He joined way later as a balance lead. As much as SC2 people whine about balance, poor balance was not anywhere near the problems that plagued SC2.
I would really say that if you weren't at least C+ level in SC BW, you should really be hesitant to voice opinions and mostly just listen to others.
Hey, thanks! I'm always willing to be wrong. Maybe I joined too late in the conversation to understand their points. By the time I joined they were already babbling wrong and/or incoherent stuff. Lemme go back a bit and come back with examples.
I'm back! Turns out, it was their second post in this thread I objected to, so I wasn't missing a lot. Here:
On April 20 2024 16:38 Crimthand wrote: C&C was in 1996 bro. SC2 was released in an era where games had bigger budgets than movies, C&C was literally the first RTS game with it's own story, as Dune 2 was Dune the novel's story.
To highlight my concerns and why they quickly felt like someone with whom I'd engage where they're at, and not more than that:
"C&C was in 1996 bro." is shit grammar, and also wholly irrelevant to the point he was responding to. In his first post he claimed SC2's story is horribly (I strongly agree), and later stated that C&C's story was goofy and paper-thin. He indicated that it was fine for C&C but not fine for SC2, and the person he's responding to in this second post contested this apparent contradiction, and rather than elucidate his point he made some fucking garbage up.
"C&C was literally the first RTS game with its own story" - This is wrong, and don't rely on me to refute it, let's just let Crimthand self-own with his previous post, where he said:
With WC, WC2 and SC, Blizzard actually did a better job at trying to create a story and do world-building. But what SC2 did to the story is absurd.
Warcraft 1 was '94. C&C was in 1996 bro. Also, if you have any concerns about Warcraft 1 not being an 'actual story' or something, here, more Crimthand :
Playing a campaign is literally playing through a story. It is the entire concept.
Moving on! "...Dune 2 was Dune the novel's story" - also wrong. I posted about it already, but Dune 2 doesn't feature any characters from the novels, features a house as a playable race that isn't present in the novels (Ordos) and at best follows themes of Dune generally. It does not follow the stories in the novels.
Further, they ended this second post with an unwarranted "Also, can you please proofread your posts and try to use proper grammar and punctuation? Thanks!", which is what gives me no hesitation in bringing the same level of "Shit your diapers bro" energy to my response.
I could continue, but this is more energy than I want to spend on a random human on the internet. I hope this clarifies why I don't see any actual central thesis of theirs to be responded to and why I engaged them with the energy they were bringing, and not... well, the energy you and I have here. They had opportunity to respond to critiques of their position, and instead chose to attack the people and not contest the ideas. Ultimately, I don't see the rare level of proper grammar, nor the coherent posts, though I accept that as, on some level, my failing. I certainly wasn't attempting to bait any mod action, I was just meeting them where they're at. They didn't rise above it yet, and if they do I'll rise alongside.
ANYWAYS.
RTS imo are in an interesting spot where the "Chasing Brood War" school of design feels like a really hard sell. I feel like a lot of us would wholeheartedly agree that BW is (among) the best competitive game available, while simultaneously being able to see that its fun isn't 'accessible'. The problem I feel will always be a problem is you can't make Brood War's fun accessible. The game is about controlling all these moving parts and the level of tension that rises from exactly that difficulty - you remove that difficulty, and you remove that fun.
A fundamental difference between SC2 and BW to me is that SC2 tried to make said fun accessible, but failed to keep the same tension. In a game of BW, a better player than me could kick the shit out of me with an army half the size, simply because they could control the engagement -that much better-. There's a tension in knowing you have an advantage and knowing the sheer difficulty in actually executing a plan that exploits that advantage. Maybenexttime said it best - the more ahead you get economically, the harder it is to manage.
I don't know how you get past this hurdle, because people don't like things being hard. It's why I harp so much on campaign being important for any RTS, because I think a good RTS -needs- to be hard*, and campaigns or co-op function as an entry point where you can start experiencing that fun before having to go on to a competitive 1v1 game and getting your ass kicked.
*That said, I'm 100% all for PvE / noncompetitive RTS experiences.
I think one oft-neglected aspect of Brood War is quite how explored it is as a game. There’s a relative handful of RTS games with even close to as many collective personhours put in to working out its many intricacies, I mean it’s incalculable but I think it’s a safe bet that it’s #1, by a distance. SC2, WC3, AoE2 are likely the only other games in the genre even in the same ballpark.
Not that there aren’t things it can teach us, far from it but I think we can slip into a kind of reverse engineering process when looking at what makes a good RTS game, and what is possible.
RTS needs the hive mind to really explore and iterate, create emergent and interesting gameplay, and in games that have those collective hours put in even incredibly talented development teams can’t predict where their babies go. It’s what makes it such an interesting genre but also so difficult to develop.
In most other genres I can think of, development teams are the innovators, in RTS it’s a collaborative effort with the playerbase.
Aside from it being something of a lightning in a bottle/perfect storm game (not taking anything away from its quality), nearly every nook and cranny of it is pretty explored. But I think it’s a mistake to have the takeaway that it’s some kind of foundational text in fundamental RTS principles.
A little chicken and egg perhaps, but is its persistent success evidence of some blueprint for RTS do’s-and-don’ts, or do we consider those more universal principles of design merely because it was so successful, and very thoroughly explored?
And of course the flipside to that is how many games had interesting mechanics and hidden depths never fully revealed because they didn’t catch fire.
On April 23 2024 08:38 Menkent wrote: I thought his posts and points were very clear. For example, C&C having a big truck harvesting fields of resources because of the novel Dune. And Warcraft having gold mines and forests. SC2 still had the same system. Deeper insights in gameplay didn't make the devs fine tune the resource systems for better 1vs1 gameplay. How can you say his point were poorly explained when they gave clear examples? And no one asked clarifying questions.
Maybe people here should have engaged with his points rather than insult him. They wrote very coherent posts with a rare level of proper grammar. Instead, you guys did what TL was famous for: baiting moderator action.
David Kim isn't to blame for the failure of SC2. He joined way later as a balance lead. As much as SC2 people whine about balance, poor balance was not anywhere near the problems that plagued SC2.
I would really say that if you weren't at least C+ level in SC BW, you should really be hesitant to voice opinions and mostly just listen to others.
Resource nodes (location and destructible), how they are gathered, how workers are designed (including how durable, speed and pathing) are core gameplay mechanics. It's never just been only about the lore, I don't understand where this perception is from and tbh I don't see why it matters.
No one is manufacturing live ammunition or extracting oil right in battlefield by army units, as it would have been implied by company of heroes.
SC2 could very well do whatever zerospace is doing, and rename them to mineral and gas and still would still be lore accurate. It's not like SCV, probes or drones are essential to the lore and won't be the first unit to be replaced/not present in the multiplayer.
In what way are they not already fine tuned for 1v1 when resources create a fundermentally different early game for SC and AoE and CoH for example. Or that maps are not designed around it? Is the issue the naming of the resources or something?
What kind of resource system would be the better system for 1v1?
On April 23 2024 12:05 Fleetfeet wrote: RTS imo are in an interesting spot where the "Chasing Brood War" school of design feels like a really hard sell. I feel like a lot of us would wholeheartedly agree that BW is (among) the best competitive game available, while simultaneously being able to see that its fun isn't 'accessible'. The problem I feel will always be a problem is you can't make Brood War's fun accessible. The game is about controlling all these moving parts and the level of tension that rises from exactly that difficulty - you remove that difficulty, and you remove that fun.
A fundamental difference between SC2 and BW to me is that SC2 tried to make said fun accessible, but failed to keep the same tension. In a game of BW, a better player than me could kick the shit out of me with an army half the size, simply because they could control the engagement -that much better-. There's a tension in knowing you have an advantage and knowing the sheer difficulty in actually executing a plan that exploits that advantage. Maybenexttime said it best - the more ahead you get economically, the harder it is to manage.
I don't know how you get past this hurdle, because people don't like things being hard. It's why I harp so much on campaign being important for any RTS, because I think a good RTS -needs- to be hard*, and campaigns or co-op function as an entry point where you can start experiencing that fun before having to go on to a competitive 1v1 game and getting your ass kicked.
*That said, I'm 100% all for PvE / noncompetitive RTS experiences.
BW is a curious beast because it has so many layers of complexity. However, fundamentally, it is an accessible game, as proven by its universal popularity and the fact that it resonated with a substantial casual playerbase. Around here on TL we like to float the concept of "real" BW referring to high-level BW: a carefully curated set of maps that follow general design rules where players frequently use various quirks and exploits in the game engine honed from years of experimentation at a blinding pace. But that is the bleeding edge.
Most players don't play that way, and don't care to learn. And yet, the game still works very well for them, and remains fun. They sit behind countless walls of Photon Cannons and build Carriers while floating thousands of minerals, if they even bothered to expand at all. They have entire attack squadrons consisting of no more than 12 Zerglings. They think Vultures are only good for Spider Mines. Some just play comp stomps or clunky, poorly-balanced UMS maps. They're perfectly happy in this world.
SC2 decided to put competition at the forefront by making ladder the default way to play multiplayer. There are tutorials about macroing, control groups, hotkeys, all to prepare you for the deep end. It also stripped down the Battle.net experience to dissuade players from building casual communities that thrived in BW. Hardcore was now the de facto Starcraft experience, and while the matchmaker tried its best to make matches fair, where even the weakest players could feel like they had a shot, the creeping dread was ever-present because everyone felt like they needed to constantly try their hardest to maintain their rank. For the casual crowds of old hoping for BW familiarity, that's a big detractor for retention. As a result, SC2's community skewed increasingly hardcore. Eventually, after years, Blizzard realized that they were alienating an entire population and introduced Co-op, which unsurprisingly was very successful because it gave those players a home again.
So when you talk about "accessibility", it's very important to get the framing right. BW and SC2 are both highly accessible. BW especially has an infinite skill ceiling with a very low skill floor (SC2, despite its QoL leaps, I'd argue has a higher skill floor by design). The better you get, and the more you learn, the more pathways for improvement appear. That's why we love BW, and that's why it has so much staying power.
So when you talk about "accessibility", it's very important to get the framing right. BW and SC2 are both highly accessible. BW especially has an infinite skill ceiling with a very low skill floor (SC2, despite its QoL leaps, I'd argue has a higher skill floor by design). The better you get, and the more you learn, the more pathways for improvement appear. That's why we love BW, and that's why it has so much staying power.
thats a good explanation i think, but i have to disagree when it comes to staying power when it comes to BW. With the release of WC3 at the latest, it wasnt the most played RTS anymore, to this day WC3 is more popular, so is SC2. You yourself wrote that nice recalling that BW wasnt popular enough to get shown on the TV back in the day.
and while BW is accesible in the sense that you can just start it and build a few units and send them across the map, most modern (that is current) players would shut it off pretty quickly since everything is a hassle to do, same is true for SC2 in a way, although stuff like multiple building selection makes it more accesible in my view, but thats very debatable id say
The amount of players that still call this their favourite game is very high for a game that age, but still nowhere near where any dev would consider it as a template. there are still plenty of old games that have loyal, loving fanbases way after all those years, many of them with very contradicting designs choices. and for the average gamer, BW (SC2 as well i would guess) doesnt stand out here, not because they "dont get it" or "are just not good enough at the game" or whatever some here a telling themself. Its because its less fun to play a game where you fight both your oppenent and the game itself for no reason. ppl love hard games (look at the success of the soullike games) and competetive play as well, but none of those games have to much "unnecessary" mechanical difficulty added, because those are just not popular with a wider audiance (and never where for many im sure)
On April 23 2024 12:05 Fleetfeet wrote: RTS imo are in an interesting spot where the "Chasing Brood War" school of design feels like a really hard sell. I feel like a lot of us would wholeheartedly agree that BW is (among) the best competitive game available, while simultaneously being able to see that its fun isn't 'accessible'. The problem I feel will always be a problem is you can't make Brood War's fun accessible. The game is about controlling all these moving parts and the level of tension that rises from exactly that difficulty - you remove that difficulty, and you remove that fun.
A fundamental difference between SC2 and BW to me is that SC2 tried to make said fun accessible, but failed to keep the same tension. In a game of BW, a better player than me could kick the shit out of me with an army half the size, simply because they could control the engagement -that much better-. There's a tension in knowing you have an advantage and knowing the sheer difficulty in actually executing a plan that exploits that advantage. Maybenexttime said it best - the more ahead you get economically, the harder it is to manage.
I don't know how you get past this hurdle, because people don't like things being hard. It's why I harp so much on campaign being important for any RTS, because I think a good RTS -needs- to be hard*, and campaigns or co-op function as an entry point where you can start experiencing that fun before having to go on to a competitive 1v1 game and getting your ass kicked.
*That said, I'm 100% all for PvE / noncompetitive RTS experiences.
BW is a curious beast because it has so many layers of complexity. However, fundamentally, it is an accessible game, as proven by its universal popularity and the fact that it resonated with a substantial casual playerbase. Around here on TL we like to float the concept of "real" BW referring to high-level BW: a carefully curated set of maps that follow general design rules where players frequently use various quirks and exploits in the game engine honed from years of experimentation at a blinding pace. But that is the bleeding edge.
Most players don't play that way, and don't care to learn. And yet, the game still works very well for them, and remains fun. They sit behind countless walls of Photon Cannons and build Carriers while floating thousands of minerals, if they even bothered to expand at all. They have entire attack squadrons consisting of no more than 12 Zerglings. They think Vultures are only good for Spider Mines. Some just play comp stomps or clunky, poorly-balanced UMS maps. They're perfectly happy in this world.
SC2 decided to put competition at the forefront by making ladder the default way to play multiplayer. There are tutorials about macroing, control groups, hotkeys, all to prepare you for the deep end. It also stripped down the Battle.net experience to dissuade players from building casual communities that thrived in BW. Hardcore was now the de facto Starcraft experience, and while the matchmaker tried its best to make matches fair, where even the weakest players could feel like they had a shot, the creeping dread was ever-present because everyone felt like they needed to constantly try their hardest to maintain their rank. For the casual crowds of old hoping for BW familiarity, that's a big detractor for retention. As a result, SC2's community skewed increasingly hardcore. Eventually, after years, Blizzard realized that they were alienating an entire population and introduced Co-op, which unsurprisingly was very successful because it gave those players a home again.
So when you talk about "accessibility", it's very important to get the framing right. BW and SC2 are both highly accessible. BW especially has an infinite skill ceiling with a very low skill floor (SC2, despite its QoL leaps, I'd argue has a higher skill floor by design). The better you get, and the more you learn, the more pathways for improvement appear. That's why we love BW, and that's why it has so much staying power.
Fair!
Part of it will be a given person's experience. Brood War FEELS a lot less accessible to me because I didn't grow up as a gamer playing it. I've played adjacent things - Warcraft 1/2, Red Alert, Dune 2 etc, but SC2 was the first time I experienced a 'tryhard' competitive multiplayer game, beyond just lan with friends or brothers, backed by the idea that people can actually be good at games. I certainly played SC1/BW, but wasn't blessed with an internet connection when I played it, so the entirety of UMS / online play was lost to me.
Approaching BW now, it doesn't feel nearly as accessible as SC2, nevermind Fortnite or Autochess or Valorant or some other modern competitive game - Aside from my own personal mental blocks, Brood War is -hard- just to do basic shit. Having bad aim in an FPS and watching yourself fail is frustrating - failing in BW is watching the wheels fall off your car in slow motion, and being powerless to do anything about it. By the time you know shit is going wrong, it's already too late for that, and you've gotta focus on holding the rest of your car-metaphor together.
For those who have been playing it on and off for the better part of the last 20 years, Brood War is gonna feel like a comfy leather glove, and of course that feels plenty accessible. For me, who has played probably around 100 hours of brood war since its release, and having watched probably 1,000, it feels like wearing mason jars on my hands and trying to play piano.
I think you're right - it's important to get the framing right, and I can't speak to how isolated my experience is. I would expect that here on TL more people are in the 'comfy leather glove' camp, but it's hard to say how accessible Brood War is to your average modern gamer.
lol you just cherry picked a few sentences about what he said as being 'poor grammar'. That's not how language works.
Also, they are right about Dune 2 and C&C stories. You can't compare that to storytelling in 2010. And yeah there were a few games whose names are basically lost that could be considered to be RTS games way early on. But those are nitpicks that don't even counter the core point. You can't say that SC2 having a shit story is ok and still appeals hugely to single player people because there was a niche game called 'Herzog Zwei'. Or that the Dune 2 game added a faction that doesn't exist in the novels. It IS the same story. You have a planet called Arrakis with spice. And you have to conquer it. That's the story. And it is pulled 1 for 1 from the book. Those don't counter the argument that SC2 had a bad story. That doesn't make any sense.
Why not deal with the good arguments? Where is the evidence that Westwood changed their resource gathering system for gameplay reasons? Where is the evidence that Blizzard switched around minerals and gas for gameplay reasons? I have never seen it. You all just assume that happened. But how can that be true when we have the maps from that time showing how the devs viewed resources. Their only idea was 'just put some one the map so the player can build stuff'. That's it! I remember how I played WC2 and I wasn't able to beat once campaign mission for a while. Yeah, I was a kid. But I couldn't immediately phantom the basic principles of RTS as we know them now. But you guys argue that the devs changed their resource system based on how competitive play YEARS LATER would turn out to be? We know for a fact basically everyone played RTS that way back then. And that must definitely have included the devs. The idea that the devs were playing 1vs1 all the time and adjusting the resource system for that is silly. And we also know other devs didn't design their games that way because they all came up with inferior systems. Did they do that on purpose? No. They just picked their own lore-based resource system.
If you throw mud at someone who makes posts with high quality. If you respond without grammar and only respond to a misinterpretation of the least relevant points, then it is on you that the other side gets annoyed. But this is classic TL. We prefer to talk about how the mods banned someone instead of talking about actual arguments. I see some people claim here he said these were all facts and now their opinion. Where does that say that? Just because you are unable or unwilling to engage with the other side's arguments, that doesn't mean the other side claimed they were facts. Additionally, if in 20 years people have not been able to successfully counter these arguments, why would someone expect something different to happen today? If you debated creationists for 30 years, and you have one more debate, you don't suddenly expect to be countered with arguments so you have to change your opinion in a way you would when you would be debating stellar evolution in irregular galaxies because the James Webb space telescope generated new data. So no, the creationist side doesn't get to yell 'But the evolution scientist is saying everything as if they are facts, I can't handle that boo boo'.
The whole dynamics that SC BW had of putting 3 workers on mineral patches, and then transferring them to your new base, is one of the reasons SC BW was strategically rich. It wasn't designed that way. In fact, it only became relevant years later. Imagine if SC BW had no workers at all, and you just had to build a building on a mineral quarry and a gas geyser, and that would both just collect x amounts of resources over time, the game would have played vastly different. And SC 2 probably would never have been made.
I also don't get how even in 2024, people who hate SC BW still feel the need to falsely claim that WC3 is more popular than SC BW. It is just amazing.
@Excalibur_Z
All those points you made about 1vs ladder SC2 are completely true for chess. I used to think that maybe in 2010 and onward, gamers didn't want to play 1vs games on a ladder and lose 50% of their games. But it turns out people do in chess? Why? It is the only thing I was wrong about, looking back at the debates during SC2 beta. I agree that Blizzard should have pushed other game modes more. But putting in a good coop mode doesn't interfere with designing a good 1vs1 game. Chess.com also has all kinds of tutorials that show you how much there is to learn for you to improve. I have never seen what they actually added, but in chess everyone agrees these are good things that help new players.
On April 23 2024 13:41 KingzTig wrote: Resource nodes (location and destructible), how they are gathered, how workers are designed (including how durable, speed and pathing) are core gameplay mechanics. It's never just been only about the lore, I don't understand where this perception is from and tbh I don't see why it matters.
It matters because as you say, they are core gameplay mechanics. The resource system basically decides how your RTS plays. It is probably the most important thing to decide upon when making an RTS.
No one is manufacturing live ammunition or extracting oil right in battlefield by army units, as it would have been implied by company of heroes.
Lore-based doesn't mean hyper-realism.
SC2 could very well do whatever zerospace is doing, and rename them to mineral and gas and still would still be lore accurate.
SC2 does the same thing as Warcraft 1 does. Are you telling me the Warcraft 1 resource system was deliberately designed for 1vs1 play?
It's not like SCV, probes or drones are essential to the lore and won't be the first unit to be replaced/not present in the multiplayer.
Are you just pretending you don't get it on purpose? What do you think would be something that is not 'lore based'?
In what way are they not already fine tuned for 1v1 when resources create a fundermentally different early game for SC and AoE and CoH for example. Or that maps are not designed around it? Is the issue the naming of the resources or something?
Yes, because SC BW resource system was not designed for competitive play, map makers changed the maps. How does AoE having a different resource system prove AoE was fine tuned for 1vs1 play?
What kind of resource system would be the better system for 1v1?
Look, we could have had a debate on that. But it would be better if RTS game devs who have 15+ years of experience designing actual RTS games would be the ones talking about this. But they don't. And if you look at Zero Space, it looks like they don't think about it either. But it is clear that having to continuously manage your economy and it's growth is good. Compared to a system where you just have 10 income per second at the start. And then at some point you can invest 1000 to go to 20 income per second. And that that is about it. In SC BW, having to invest in both workers and town halls already makes it multi-pronged. You can do a small investment to get more short term income. Or a larger investment to get more long term income. One thing you could change about SC BW would be to make a special building that is used to build workers. And that your second and third town hall are only used to gather resources to, not to build more workers. This decouples both strategies, diversifying it more. Not saying you have to do this, but this is just an example of how this works.
But since SC BW is completely lore-based, they just had the Warcraft town hall and no one thought about the emergent gameplay that became apparent years later. No one on the Starcaft team would ever have proposed making a special building for building more workers to make strategies more diverse. But they could have during SC2. And that's exactly the point.
A lot of people criticize the former Blizzard devs now making new RTS games of making copies of Starcraft. If you go back completely to the drawing board, and you rethink RTS fundamentally, and you come up with a completely new resource gathering system, you avoid a whole bunch of this criticism. For example, you could design a game where worker harass is permanent. Where it is just a thing, always. Meaning, you don't need to build buildings, then units, then move them to the enemy base. You can have permanent micro around worker harass. It could mean units don't die and end. You could give both sides units that are immortal that can just disrupt resource gathering for the other team. And you start with them, but you can invest to make them stronger or different. And you end up having to counter both the strategies and the micro involved the entire game.
On April 23 2024 12:05 Fleetfeet wrote: RTS imo are in an interesting spot where the "Chasing Brood War" school of design feels like a really hard sell. I feel like a lot of us would wholeheartedly agree that BW is (among) the best competitive game available, while simultaneously being able to see that its fun isn't 'accessible'. The problem I feel will always be a problem is you can't make Brood War's fun accessible. The game is about controlling all these moving parts and the level of tension that rises from exactly that difficulty - you remove that difficulty, and you remove that fun.
A fundamental difference between SC2 and BW to me is that SC2 tried to make said fun accessible, but failed to keep the same tension. In a game of BW, a better player than me could kick the shit out of me with an army half the size, simply because they could control the engagement -that much better-. There's a tension in knowing you have an advantage and knowing the sheer difficulty in actually executing a plan that exploits that advantage. Maybenexttime said it best - the more ahead you get economically, the harder it is to manage.
I don't know how you get past this hurdle, because people don't like things being hard. It's why I harp so much on campaign being important for any RTS, because I think a good RTS -needs- to be hard*, and campaigns or co-op function as an entry point where you can start experiencing that fun before having to go on to a competitive 1v1 game and getting your ass kicked.
*That said, I'm 100% all for PvE / noncompetitive RTS experiences.
BW is a curious beast because it has so many layers of complexity. However, fundamentally, it is an accessible game, as proven by its universal popularity and the fact that it resonated with a substantial casual playerbase. Around here on TL we like to float the concept of "real" BW referring to high-level BW: a carefully curated set of maps that follow general design rules where players frequently use various quirks and exploits in the game engine honed from years of experimentation at a blinding pace. But that is the bleeding edge.
Most players don't play that way, and don't care to learn. And yet, the game still works very well for them, and remains fun. They sit behind countless walls of Photon Cannons and build Carriers while floating thousands of minerals, if they even bothered to expand at all. They have entire attack squadrons consisting of no more than 12 Zerglings. They think Vultures are only good for Spider Mines. Some just play comp stomps or clunky, poorly-balanced UMS maps. They're perfectly happy in this world.
SC2 decided to put competition at the forefront by making ladder the default way to play multiplayer. There are tutorials about macroing, control groups, hotkeys, all to prepare you for the deep end. It also stripped down the Battle.net experience to dissuade players from building casual communities that thrived in BW. Hardcore was now the de facto Starcraft experience, and while the matchmaker tried its best to make matches fair, where even the weakest players could feel like they had a shot, the creeping dread was ever-present because everyone felt like they needed to constantly try their hardest to maintain their rank. For the casual crowds of old hoping for BW familiarity, that's a big detractor for retention. As a result, SC2's community skewed increasingly hardcore. Eventually, after years, Blizzard realized that they were alienating an entire population and introduced Co-op, which unsurprisingly was very successful because it gave those players a home again.
So when you talk about "accessibility", it's very important to get the framing right. BW and SC2 are both highly accessible. BW especially has an infinite skill ceiling with a very low skill floor (SC2, despite its QoL leaps, I'd argue has a higher skill floor by design). The better you get, and the more you learn, the more pathways for improvement appear. That's why we love BW, and that's why it has so much staying power.
Personally I have to disagree with most of everything here, but also in some way I am in total agreement with you. I say that with no disrespect, and from a pretty hardcore gamer perspective.
All you need to do is look beyond RTS scene.
SC2 was just the earliest batch of the modern gaming era, which every game are fighting for player's time and attention. Many video game devs have brought up this point, the sense of progression matters just as much if not more than having fun.
Decades ago, your range of competition would most likely be local pub hero or your friends. With the internet maturing, your competition is worldwide. Which game right now has a big casual scene alongside with a competitive esports scene?
That's why we have toxic meta build players in Helldivers 2 (which is a 100% PvE mode, and you don't lose anything at all even if you failed the mission). You have "best build" on a simple casual card game like marvel snap. Diablo genre becoming even more of a minmax grind, when most of playerbase at casual used to just enjoy the game at their pacing back in D2 .
Fighter genre is the biggest victim of it all, most of their games have player count down 90% within around a month after launch. The difference? Remember it used to be played mostly in arcade?
Fortnite is now played like a psychotic game where players spam their build wall buttons, and drove players off. EPIC basically repositioned the whole game with collaborate for MTX and get out of the broken meta/core gameplay loop.
Games just aren't building their social side through lobby or launcher, it's all discord/social media/twitch. Not League of legends, not Dota, not overwatch, not CS.
looking at BW and thinking to use it as a template for modern game era is imo, not seeing how much gaming has changed overall, at every genre.
I never played Fortnite, but from watching, the whole building thing inside Fortnite is really complex, hard to learn, emergent and not intentional, and it interferes with the traditional shooting skillset of traditional FPS. I am sure there's quite a few people that would have liked Fortnite more with less building.
You can say it is just 'stupid build wall' spamming. But even with me never having played it, I can say that's false. And people loved the gameplay it gave.
You could really compare building in Fortnite to macro in SC BW. In that one could say that it is lame, hard to learn, takes tons of clicks, and gets in the way of the actual game: shooting.
On April 23 2024 13:41 KingzTig wrote: Resource nodes (location and destructible), how they are gathered, how workers are designed (including how durable, speed and pathing) are core gameplay mechanics. It's never just been only about the lore, I don't understand where this perception is from and tbh I don't see why it matters.
It matters because as you say, they are core gameplay mechanics. The resource system basically decides how your RTS plays. It is probably the most important thing to decide upon when making an RTS.
In what way are they not already fine tuned for 1v1 when resources create a fundermentally different early game for SC and AoE and CoH for example. Or that maps are not designed around it? Is the issue the naming of the resources or something?
Yes, because SC BW resource system was not designed for competitive play, map makers changed the maps. How does AoE having a different resource system prove AoE was fine tuned for 1vs1 play?
What kind of resource system would be the better system for 1v1?
Look, we could have had a debate on that. But it would be better if RTS game devs who have 15+ years of experience designing actual RTS games would be the ones talking about this. But they don't. And if you look at Zero Space, it looks like they don't think about it either. But it is clear that having to continuously manage your economy and it's growth is good. Compared to a system where you just have 10 income per second at the start. And then at some point you can invest 1000 to go to 20 income per second. And that that is about it. In SC BW, having to invest in both workers and town halls already makes it multi-pronged. You can do a small investment to get more short term income. Or a larger investment to get more long term income. One thing you could change about SC BW would be to make a special building that is used to build workers. And that your second and third town hall are only used to gather resources to, not to build more workers. This decouples both strategies, diversifying it more. Not saying you have to do this, but this is just an example of how this works.
But since SC BW is completely lore-based, they just had the Warcraft town hall and no one thought about the emergent gameplay that became apparent years later. No one on the Starcaft team would ever have proposed making a special building for building more workers to make strategies more diverse. But they could have during SC2. And that's exactly the point.
Honestly to me, what you are saying makes no sense
What in the BW lore stops them from doing exactly what your idea is? Where in the BW lore implies all resources should be next to your command centre and not all around the maps like AOE?
What in the lore in AOE make it so that it is possible for AOE to have resource specific gathering hub, and not BW?
And where in zerospace is their resources system lore specific and limited by it to the point they cant have whatever system you spoke of?
This is such a random argument, when we do have multiple RTS with vastly different resource system, some even without a story mode.
What in the BW lore stops them from doing exactly what your idea is?
Nothing. And this has nothing to do with the argument.
Where in the BW lore implies all resources should be next to your command centre and not all around the maps like AOE?
No where. And this has nothing to do with the argument.
What in the lore in AOE make it so that it is possible for AOE to have resource specific gathering hub, and not BW?
No where. And this has nothing to do with the argument.
And where in zerospace is their resources system lore specific and limited by it to the point they cant have whatever system you spoke of?
Nothing.
This is such a random argument, when we do have multiple RTS with vastly different resource system, some even without a story mode.
Because you are trying on purpose to not get it.
How do YOU think game devs decided on their resource system? Look, it is way way more simple than you think it is. Devs just copy a resource system from a previous game. Or they make one up that makes sense in their game world. How that makes the game play are secondary considerations. And I am arguing that in 2024, they should be the primary ones.
No way in hell that the Dune 2 team considered having workers that chop down trees or gather gold. They had these spice mining trucks being picked up by 'carryalls'. It is in the novel. They just put that straight into the game and it worked fine for their purposes. Their game was really successful and spun off an entire genre of games.
On April 23 2024 17:41 Menkent wrote: I never played Fortnite, but from watching, the whole building thing inside Fortnite is really complex, hard to learn, emergent and not intentional, and it interferes with the traditional shooting skillset of traditional FPS. I am sure there's quite a few people that would have liked Fortnite more with less building.
You can say it is just 'stupid build wall' spamming. But even with me never having played it, I can say that's false. And people loved the gameplay it gave.
You could really compare building in Fortnite to macro in SC BW. In that one could say that it is lame, hard to learn, takes tons of clicks, and gets in the way of the actual game: shooting.
See! So I was right about Fortnite and building. Many people do dislike it. But it was the thing that made it initially very popular, because it was new.
This is such a random argument, when we do have multiple RTS with vastly different resource system, some even without a story mode.
Because you are trying on purpose to not get it.
How do YOU think game devs decided on their resource system? Look, it is way way more simple than you think it is. Devs just copy a resource system from a previous game. Or they make one up that makes sense in their game world. How that makes the game play are secondary considerations. And I am arguing that in 2024, they should be the primary ones.
No way in hell that the Dune 2 team considered having workers that chop down trees or gather gold. They had these spice mining trucks being picked up by 'carryalls'. It is in the novel. They just put that straight into the game and it worked fine for their purposes. Their game was really successful and spun off an entire genre of games.
Nope because now we are getting somewhere.
It's not about lore based because nothing in the lore stops them from doing whatever you mentioned.
You are talking about resources system did not innovate what a resource system that was crafted from lore. Which I still disagree since nothing in WC1 or (WC2, 3) lore stopped them from using a resource gathering hub system, and which they clearly could have copied from AOE when that was put into the table.
Contrast to what you think, rts games do have resources system considered for gameplay.
you don't even need to gather resource to generate top bar ability for Zerospace. Nor do you need to kill units to gain so (by capturing points, similar to COH). Similar system exist for gate of pyre.
And it is a pretty crazy thing to say, considering greygoo has some of the most innovative faction design ever and that includes how it gathered resources
On April 23 2024 18:15 Menkent wrote: See! So I was right about Fortnite and building. Many people do dislike it. But it was the thing that made it initially very popular, because it was new.
ah you are right, I didn't read that properly. my bad
@KingzTig It is not the argument. It is not hard. Why not at least try and engage with the actual thing being said? Like claiming that a gameplay-based resource system might feel contrived or arbitrary or break immersion. Those are solid arguments.
Saying 'but the lore doesn't forbid it, so it is not lore-based' is nonsense and a stupid thing to even say. Especially if you are still saying it AFTER quoting FIVE TIMES.
If you had come to me and said 'Zero Space does have a pure gameplay-based system: the energy bar' Id have said ah yes, that is an example of what I meant. But you didn't even do that.
The fact that you do it now proves you understood perfectly well the entire time and you were being deliberately bad faith all that time. Even in this latest post, where you still pretend not to get it. And admit you do get it, giving a good example. In the very same post.
Please stop.
And for others who do want to engage, I never said game devs never adjust their lore-based resource system based on gameplay. Of course they do. And I also never said you can't adapt lore to explain your gameplay-based system. You obviously can. The issue is where the fundamental nature of the resource system comes from. Is it a lore/setting/world-building thing? Or is it a pure gameplay consideration.
If you have evidence that for Warcraft 1 they had several different resources systems that they playtested and they went wit the one giving the best gameplay, please show me. Because I have never seen it.
On April 23 2024 18:28 Menkent wrote: It is not the argument. It is not hard. Why not at least try and engage with the actual thing being said? Like claiming that a gameplay-based resource system might feel contrived or arbitrary or break immersion. Those are solid arguments.
Saying 'but the lore doesn't forbid it, so it is not lore-based' is nonsense and a stupid thing to even say. Especially if you are still saying it AFTER quoting FIVE TIMES.
If you had come to me and said 'Zero Space does have a pure gameplay-based system: the energy bar' Id have said ah yes, that is an example of what I meant. But you didn't even do that.
The fact that you do it now proves you understood perfectly well the entire time and you were being deliberately bad faith all that time. Even in this latest post, where you still pretend not to get it. And admit you do get it, giving a good example.
Please stop.
If you keep saying its lore based but lore never addressed any limitations, obviously you are the one confusing everyone.
Let alone you saying as if most modern rts don't even try to innovate, that part is outright wrong again because which of the new game doesn't? Zerospace, gate of pyre and stormgate. Let me know.
I have even given you a few examples of what games were innovating and what designs they were borrowing. But you seem to think wc3 couldn't have burrowed from AOE gathering hub system because it's how it's always been.
Immortal, Gate of Pyre is literally a carbon copy from Blizzard RTS. Town hall, workers, alloys being gathered by workers that can be harassed, and ether where you build your gas extractor.
Are you seriously asking this question? Of of all the games we could discuss, this one is maybe the clearest.
I still don't get the 'limited by lore' thing. And I never said devs didn't try to innovate. The general criticism is that no dev has been able to innovate enough to pull in a new audience. And my criticism is that they didn't take the lessons of SC BW for 1vs1 play, and intentionally designed the game from the ground up to have interesting 1vs1 play. For both casuals and competitive players.
Gates of Pyre is the perfect example. They literally copied SC2 and simplified it. Their resource system is my exact argument. It is simplified because the alloy is a combination of a gold mine in WC3 or mineral patches in SC BW/SC2. It just takes less workers. And the gas extractor is simplified because it takes no workers at all.
Doesn't mean it is bad per se. But the devs obviously thought 'the SC2 system works, but SC2 is generally too hard to learn, so let's make it a tiny bit simpler'. They didn't think about worker saturation, investment curves, rate of returns, and how that would diversify 1vs1 play.
But if you have an interview with a Gate of Pyre developer, where they explain why they changed the Blizzard resource system, and they explain why they believe their changes will lead to richer gameplay and strategies, please show me.
On April 23 2024 18:45 Menkent wrote: Immortal, Gate of Pyre is literally a carbon copy from Blizzard RTS. Town hall, workers, alloys being gathered by workers that can be harassed, and ether where you build your gas extractor.
Are you seriously asking this question? Of of all the games we could discuss, this one is maybe the clearest.
I still don't get the 'limited by lore' thing. And I never said devs didn't try to innovate. The general criticism is that no dev has been able to innovate enough to pull in a new audience. And my criticism is that they didn't take the lessons of SC BW for 1vs1 play, and intentionally designed the game from the ground up to have interesting 1vs1 play. For both casuals and competitive players.
Gates of Pyre is the perfect example. They literally copied SC2 and simplified it. Their resource system is my exact argument. It is simplified because the alloy is a combination of a gold mine in WC3 or mineral patches in SC BW/SC2. It just takes less workers. And the gas extractor is simplified because it takes no workers at all.
Doesn't mean it is bad per se. But the devs obviously thought 'the SC2 system works, but SC2 is generally too hard to learn, so let's make it a tiny bit simpler'. They didn't think about worker saturation, investment curves, rate of returns, and how that would diversify 1vs1 play.
But if you have an interview with a Gate of Pyre developer, where they explain why they changed the Blizzard resource system, and they explain why they believe their changes will lead to richer gameplay and strategies, please show me.
Carbon copy of sc2 would make it lore based or? And are you really going to ignore capturing map objective for the third resource to cast global abilities? How is that not diversifying 1v1?
Why do you think they didn't think about worker saturation, when it literally has an upgrade to increase mineable workers on one alloy?
Are you saying they never thought about unit strength, tech path and production rate for the rate of return? That's a big bold claim to make
lol you just cherry picked a few sentences about what he said as being 'poor grammar'. That's not how language works.
Also, they are right about Dune 2 and C&C stories. You can't compare that to storytelling in 2010. And yeah there were a few games whose names are basically lost that could be considered to be RTS games way early on. But those are nitpicks that don't even counter the core point. You can't say that SC2 having a shit story is ok and still appeals hugely to single player people because there was a niche game called 'Herzog Zwei'. Or that the Dune 2 game added a faction that doesn't exist in the novels. It IS the same story. You have a planet called Arrakis with spice. And you have to conquer it. That's the story. And it is pulled 1 for 1 from the book. Those don't counter the argument that SC2 had a bad story. That doesn't make any sense.
I didn't cherry-pick anything! It was the first post of theirs that I responded to, and the whole fucking paragraph I disagreed with. These weren't random sentences I grabbed from hither and yon, it was one post and one paragraph and that's all I needed to prove my point. I could exhaustively pull examples of shit grammar or them being a dick, but I don't need to - the first post of theirs I interacted with had it all cleanly, right there. You want to refute that, go ahead. Handwaving it away as me cherry-picking is lazy.
As to the bolded, you cannot believe this. They themselves do not believe this, as evidenced to them doing the following:
1) Declaring that playing through a campaign is playing through the story "Playing a campaign is literally playing through a story. It is the entire concept."
2) Admitting that Warcraft 1 has both a campaign and a story "With WC, WC2 and SC, Blizzard actually did a better job at trying to create a story and do world-building."
3) Confessing they know C&C came out in 1996, where Warcraft 1 came out in 1994. "C&C was in 1996 bro."
By basic application of logic, we can see that the statement they made of "C&C was literally the first RTS game with it's own story" is patently false. Dune 2 having a story or not is irrelevant, because even if Dune 2 doesn't have an original story by some wild arbitration, Warcraft 1 still came out before and has an original story.
If you care to, you could explain precisely what you mean when you claim they are right about Dune 2 and C&C stories. As I see it currently, they cannot be right about Dune 2 and C&C stories based on ThE WoRdS tHeY WroTe. I don't have to argue against a point they made, because the point collapsed on itself before it had a chance to live.
I don't know how you get past this hurdle, because people don't like things being hard. It's why I harp so much on campaign being important for any RTS, because I think a good RTS -needs- to be hard*, and campaigns or co-op function as an entry point where you can start experiencing that fun before having to go on to a competitive 1v1 game and getting your ass kicked.
*That said, I'm 100% all for PvE / noncompetitive RTS experiences.
This one is a bit more difficult to tackle because people actually LOOOOVE things beeing hard. Just look at the market. It's flooded with "souls"-like games, harsh survival games and other games that make people smash their keyboards. And everyone loves it. The difference beeing that most of these are PvE mechanics which you can immediately give another try and again and again while if you lost a PvP game (1v1 in particular I guess), it's lost and you failed and don't get that 2nd chance. Anyway, my point beeing: mechanics can be hard and people are willing to learn all kinds of patterns and combos. It kinda just has to be clear what to do, what for and then ofc there needs to be some kind of victory feeling/ adrenaline rush.
WTF are you on about. Why would I argue for someone else's point?
You are indeed a complete dick, like you say. WTF are you even trying to do? You could have had an argument about RTS. Or about their history. But all you do is throw around a gigantic pile of diarrhea.
Honestly, I can't even understand your post right now. You sum up 3 points. Points of what? They cannot believe this? What? you cannot believe this? What? Believe what?
Dune 2 didn't have its own story. The story came from the novel.
Why the fuck are you even posting? This is completely incoherent. Why don't you go read a children's book on 'Grammar in the English language' and read that instead? Here, buy this:
In fact, I'll even paypall it for you. As long as you stop posting here.
Lol you are just another Dota2 player trying to have an argument on RTS. Once you grow some manners, mature up, and grow a pair of balls/ovaries, go argue about Moba's somewhere.
I don't know how you get past this hurdle, because people don't like things being hard. It's why I harp so much on campaign being important for any RTS, because I think a good RTS -needs- to be hard*, and campaigns or co-op function as an entry point where you can start experiencing that fun before having to go on to a competitive 1v1 game and getting your ass kicked.
*That said, I'm 100% all for PvE / noncompetitive RTS experiences.
This one is a bit more difficult to tackle because people actually LOOOOVE things beeing hard. Just look at the market. It's flooded with "souls"-like games, harsh survival games and other games that make people smash their keyboards. And everyone loves it. The difference beeing that most of these are PvE mechanics which you can immediately give another try and again and again while if you lost a PvP game (1v1 in particular I guess), it's lost and you failed and don't get that 2nd chance. Anyway, my point beeing: mechanics can be hard and people are willing to learn all kinds of patterns and combos. It kinda just has to be clear what to do, what for and then ofc there needs to be some kind of victory feeling/ adrenaline rush.
I guess you could help with this by simply adding an option of a rematch into match making? Like, if you finished a match you get a pop-up or something asking you for a rematch and if both accept it within 1 minute or so you enter a rematch.
i dont think having a rematch button fixes anything about that, since the other player can do something different this time and if it was one of your mistakes, you can pay attention to it next game no matter the opponent.
i think a good team vs team mode can be a nice entry drug to 1v1 if this is a goal of devs, since the barrier is much lower playing in a team (as can be seen by MOBAs popularity), it just would need some things added to the n players are doing the same thing in parallel. be it some side quests, some rescources being farmed by only a few players of a team or whatever.
if ppl have fun in team games, they will eventually try 1v1 as well, and the game is still played by more players, which benefits pretty much everyone
On April 23 2024 12:05 Fleetfeet wrote: RTS imo are in an interesting spot where the "Chasing Brood War" school of design feels like a really hard sell. I feel like a lot of us would wholeheartedly agree that BW is (among) the best competitive game available, while simultaneously being able to see that its fun isn't 'accessible'. The problem I feel will always be a problem is you can't make Brood War's fun accessible. The game is about controlling all these moving parts and the level of tension that rises from exactly that difficulty - you remove that difficulty, and you remove that fun.
A fundamental difference between SC2 and BW to me is that SC2 tried to make said fun accessible, but failed to keep the same tension. In a game of BW, a better player than me could kick the shit out of me with an army half the size, simply because they could control the engagement -that much better-. There's a tension in knowing you have an advantage and knowing the sheer difficulty in actually executing a plan that exploits that advantage. Maybenexttime said it best - the more ahead you get economically, the harder it is to manage.
I don't know how you get past this hurdle, because people don't like things being hard. It's why I harp so much on campaign being important for any RTS, because I think a good RTS -needs- to be hard*, and campaigns or co-op function as an entry point where you can start experiencing that fun before having to go on to a competitive 1v1 game and getting your ass kicked.
*That said, I'm 100% all for PvE / noncompetitive RTS experiences.
BW is a curious beast because it has so many layers of complexity. However, fundamentally, it is an accessible game, as proven by its universal popularity and the fact that it resonated with a substantial casual playerbase. Around here on TL we like to float the concept of "real" BW referring to high-level BW: a carefully curated set of maps that follow general design rules where players frequently use various quirks and exploits in the game engine honed from years of experimentation at a blinding pace. But that is the bleeding edge.
Most players don't play that way, and don't care to learn. And yet, the game still works very well for them, and remains fun. They sit behind countless walls of Photon Cannons and build Carriers while floating thousands of minerals, if they even bothered to expand at all. They have entire attack squadrons consisting of no more than 12 Zerglings. They think Vultures are only good for Spider Mines. Some just play comp stomps or clunky, poorly-balanced UMS maps. They're perfectly happy in this world.
SC2 decided to put competition at the forefront by making ladder the default way to play multiplayer. There are tutorials about macroing, control groups, hotkeys, all to prepare you for the deep end. It also stripped down the Battle.net experience to dissuade players from building casual communities that thrived in BW. Hardcore was now the de facto Starcraft experience, and while the matchmaker tried its best to make matches fair, where even the weakest players could feel like they had a shot, the creeping dread was ever-present because everyone felt like they needed to constantly try their hardest to maintain their rank. For the casual crowds of old hoping for BW familiarity, that's a big detractor for retention. As a result, SC2's community skewed increasingly hardcore. Eventually, after years, Blizzard realized that they were alienating an entire population and introduced Co-op, which unsurprisingly was very successful because it gave those players a home again.
So when you talk about "accessibility", it's very important to get the framing right. BW and SC2 are both highly accessible. BW especially has an infinite skill ceiling with a very low skill floor (SC2, despite its QoL leaps, I'd argue has a higher skill floor by design). The better you get, and the more you learn, the more pathways for improvement appear. That's why we love BW, and that's why it has so much staying power.
Personally I have to disagree with most of everything here, but also in some way I am in total agreement with you. I say that with no disrespect, and from a pretty hardcore gamer perspective.
All you need to do is look beyond RTS scene.
SC2 was just the earliest batch of the modern gaming era, which every game are fighting for player's time and attention. Many video game devs have brought up this point, the sense of progression matters just as much if not more than having fun.
Decades ago, your range of competition would most likely be local pub hero or your friends. With the internet maturing, your competition is worldwide. Which game right now has a big casual scene alongside with a competitive esports scene?
That's why we have toxic meta build players in Helldivers 2 (which is a 100% PvE mode, and you don't lose anything at all even if you failed the mission). You have "best build" on a simple casual card game like marvel snap. Diablo genre becoming even more of a minmax grind, when most of playerbase at casual used to just enjoy the game at their pacing back in D2 .
Fighter genre is the biggest victim of it all, most of their games have player count down 90% within around a month after launch. The difference? Remember it used to be played mostly in arcade?
Fortnite is now played like a psychotic game where players spam their build wall buttons, and drove players off. EPIC basically repositioned the whole game with collaborate for MTX and get out of the broken meta/core gameplay loop.
Games just aren't building their social side through lobby or launcher, it's all discord/social media/twitch. Not League of legends, not Dota, not overwatch, not CS.
looking at BW and thinking to use it as a template for modern game era is imo, not seeing how much gaming has changed overall, at every genre.
I do think the content creation space -- and telemetry -- had a large influence on both player behavior and game design. Content creators push the narrative of "optimal play" for clicks. Telemetry informs designers about gaps. To your question about which games successfully simultaneously support casual and competitive experiences... maybe Destiny? I'd also argue SF6 was quite successful in that regard, and that its Modern controls gambit paid off in teaching newer players how to conceptualize mechanics without being blocked by input barriers (and the Cooperation Cup initiatives also did a great job perpetuating the idea to a broad casual audience that anyone can play fighting games). Maybe Dota2 with its Arcade and various seasonal PvE modes?
I'm not suggesting using BW as a model for in-game socialization, by the way. I just meant that BW players who did have that expectation with the sequel basically felt like they had the rug pulled out from under them.
I don't know how you get past this hurdle, because people don't like things being hard. It's why I harp so much on campaign being important for any RTS, because I think a good RTS -needs- to be hard*, and campaigns or co-op function as an entry point where you can start experiencing that fun before having to go on to a competitive 1v1 game and getting your ass kicked.
*That said, I'm 100% all for PvE / noncompetitive RTS experiences.
This one is a bit more difficult to tackle because people actually LOOOOVE things beeing hard. Just look at the market. It's flooded with "souls"-like games, harsh survival games and other games that make people smash their keyboards. And everyone loves it. The difference beeing that most of these are PvE mechanics which you can immediately give another try and again and again while if you lost a PvP game (1v1 in particular I guess), it's lost and you failed and don't get that 2nd chance. Anyway, my point beeing: mechanics can be hard and people are willing to learn all kinds of patterns and combos. It kinda just has to be clear what to do, what for and then ofc there needs to be some kind of victory feeling/ adrenaline rush.
Totally, and I was imprecise with my use of 'hard'. There's certainly a market for difficult games, and people like being GOOD at difficult games. I dun have time right now, but there's certainly something to the idea of a game being hard in the same way playing piano well is hard, and games like the souls series this point have been teaching people to play electric keyboards for years.
I'm surprised they are not thinking about making tools to help players become better at the game, instead of making the game easier to play. Although I share their view about SC2 becoming way too complex with too many buildings, units, spells and so on for the casual gamer, I still believe that mechanics, speed, APM, multitasking are at the core of competitive RTS.
So why not provide some sort of built-in coaching module to help the player improve? Things like what we tried doing in the old BW days with BWChart, APMAlert or BWCoach. Things it could do:
-display meaningful post-game stats but more importantly, provide a smart analysis of them and derive things to work on to improve etc (watch Moneyball with Jonah Hill) -provide in-game build-order coaching: "prepare to build this unit", "now build this unit", etc -provide a library of build orders to train with, with a possibility to import third-party BOs -provide in-game mechanics coaching: "check your base", "inject now", "check army on hotkey 1", "upgrade now", "use hotkey x for your marines", etc -provide in-game strategic coaching (we have AI now...): "time to expand", "time to switch army composition", "your opponent seems to be playing the xxxx strat, we suggest doing..." -provide a library of strategies to train with, with a possibility to import third-party strategies. -provide a bunch of in-game tutorials for competitive gaming, with the coaching module trying to teach things one at a time, then combine them, etc, offering a smooth learning curve and adapting to your current skill level, like a real coach would do (we have AI now...). Ideally, those games would be "generated" depending on what you want to work on, your skill level, the opponent skill level you want to emulate, and so on.
When you think about it, in which sport do you get to learn all the technique and do all the practice totally on your own? Take competitive swimming for example, how far do you go without a proper coach who explains you what to learn, how to learn it, in which order, with witch methodology and so forth. Not mentioning all the time spent in the pool with the coach watching over you, fixing all the wrong moves, etc.
One last idea: use the AI developed for the coaching module to figure out your real skill level during ladder games and adjust the matchmaking process accordingly. No more fake bronze players trashing the real bronze ones for fun
People say improvement in an RTS is mostly drilling rote skills like not getting supply blocked, constantly producing, following a build order etc. This is true (to an extent)*. However, it's also true for pretty much all competitive games, including popular genres. Improvement in League, CS, Dota, Rocket League, Valorant etc. is 80-90% mechanics. So it doesn't seem to be a very good explanation for why RTS games aren't popular anymore.
*It's true to the degree that the most efficient way to improve is by practicing mechanics. But in reality there are many ways to improve, and improving as efficiently as possible isn't the way everyone plays games.
On April 28 2024 01:33 jca2 wrote: I'm surprised they are not thinking about making tools to help players become better at the game, instead of making the game easier to play. Although I share their view about SC2 becoming way too complex with too many buildings, units, spells and so on for the casual gamer, I still believe that mechanics, speed, APM, multitasking are at the core of competitive RTS.
So why not provide some sort of built-in coaching module to help the player improve? Things like what we tried doing in the old BW days with BWChart, APMAlert or BWCoach. Things it could do:
-display meaningful post-game stats but more importantly, provide a smart analysis of them and derive things to work on to improve etc (watch Moneyball with Jonah Hill) -provide in-game build-order coaching: "prepare to build this unit", "now build this unit", etc -provide a library of build orders to train with, with a possibility to import third-party BOs -provide in-game mechanics coaching: "check your base", "inject now", "check army on hotkey 1", "upgrade now", "use hotkey x for your marines", etc -provide in-game strategic coaching (we have AI now...): "time to expand", "time to switch army composition", "your opponent seems to be playing the xxxx strat, we suggest doing..." -provide a library of strategies to train with, with a possibility to import third-party strategies. -provide a bunch of in-game tutorials for competitive gaming, with the coaching module trying to teach things one at a time, then combine them, etc, offering a smooth learning curve and adapting to your current skill level, like a real coach would do (we have AI now...). Ideally, those games would be "generated" depending on what you want to work on, your skill level, the opponent skill level you want to emulate, and so on.
When you think about it, in which sport do you get to learn all the technique and do all the practice totally on your own? Take competitive swimming for example, how far do you go without a proper coach who explains you what to learn, how to learn it, in which order, with witch methodology and so forth. Not mentioning all the time spent in the pool with the coach watching over you, fixing all the wrong moves, etc.
One last idea: use the AI developed for the coaching module to figure out your real skill level during ladder games and adjust the matchmaking process accordingly. No more fake bronze players trashing the real bronze ones for fun
When I think of the average casual player, this is the profile I use: - They don't like frontloaded complexity. - They don't like tutorials. - They want a fundamentally simple game loop. - They want immediate gameplay feedback. - They want some form of progression.
If I'm a designer, I look at this profile and have a nervous breakdown. Tutorials are proven to work, but players hate reading when they could instead learn something through their own discovery. RTS games (and also fighting games) already have a reputation for complexity, which stops a huge amount of people from even trying them out. The most clever way to teach players is through level design. There is a subtle but effective difference between telling a player "Spider Mines do full damage to Large units like Dragoons. Try using one against this Dragoon now." and letting the player feel smart by killing 1 Dragoon on Hold Position at a chokepoint with their 1 Vulture.
That said, I do agree that a suite of competitive-level coaching tools could be beneficial once players have proven that they fully understand the basics. SC2 tried a competitive onboarding method in Wings of Liberty (which was not very robust) where you had to build a certain number of units within a certain time, or defeat a powerful wave of enemies that was set to arrive at a certain time. Those interactive exercises weren't ideal, but they at least set expectations for the player that opponents were going to operate in a certain way, in order to prepare them for the multiplayer experience. So, something more advanced could probably work, but only after players have gone through that initial organic learning phase (generally, there is this huge player confidence gap that exists between understanding concepts and applying them within a competitive format).
I'm not fully on board with using AI/ML to estimate a player's skill within a broad spectrum, at least in RTS. I know that method is used often in FPS games like Halo, where TrueSkill2 will accurately identify that the 30-0-12 KDA player in your 1500 MMR lobby probably shouldn't have his MMR increased by only +10. In RTS, with the sheer amount of variables in play and the wide variety of playstyles, I think that's a much harder sell (and when Valve attempted something similar in Dota2, players were able to exploit it to achieve artificially high or low account placement).
Tutorials, learning modes. etc need to be a bonus. Very optional. Chess.com has tons of training modes and lessons. They work.
But it should be completely optional for those who enjoy practicing deliberately for the game they play. Many people just don't like that. I am surprised that people say MOBAs are more popular because they are easy to learn in comparison to RTS. That doesn't make sense to me. But yes, for RTS there is a lot of deliberate practice to do that will make you better. Which could be considered 'mundane' or 'rote' or whatever. But the same is true for many other games. Do fighting games like Street Fighter have game modes that allow you to quickly practice certain moves?
Still, Starcraft 2 had very little of these. Despite the fact that SC BW had many multitask practice UMS maps. So I would say this is just one more thing where SC2 did drop the ball.
People should be able to just play without thinking and have fun. But people who want to try to deliberately practice, should also have that option. And if the game becomes less fun with deliberate practice, then your game is flawed.
For RTS I now wonder if maybe the reason for the unexpected inpopularity may be that the learning feedback loop in RTS is quite long-term. In FPS or MOBA and even chess, if you make a mistake, you usually immediately find out. But in RTS, if you make a mistake, you might be rewarded on the short term by losing less fast. This can make the learning feedback loop at lof more tricky. Even Deepmind had to struggle with that, where the AI tried to become better at the game by playing in a silly way to just lose less fast. I believe that the first iterations of the AI just tried to win the game by refusing to play it. Humans have a similar reward model. How humans are able to learn is actually quite fascinating. Usually, we get better by doing the same thing over and over again. But that actually doesn't make sense. You get better by doing things better. And what 'better' means often is not obvious. And this likely is more true in TRS than in MOBA and FPS.
If this is the actual reason for the inpolularity of RTS, then literally no developer ever has addressed this.
I am sure Dota2 players have great insights into MOBA. But let's keep your opinions to MOBA games on Dota2 fora. Don't pollute RTS with your misguided ideas. No matter how big you think your ego should be. MOBAs are great. They just aren't RTS and playing MOBAs doesn't make you understand RTS. Even if you are actually good.
On April 28 2024 06:36 prion_ wrote: People say improvement in an RTS is mostly drilling rote skills like not getting supply blocked, constantly producing, following a build order etc. This is true (to an extent)*. However, it's also true for pretty much all competitive games, including popular genres. Improvement in League, CS, Dota, Rocket League, Valorant etc. is 80-90% mechanics. So it doesn't seem to be a very good explanation for why RTS games aren't popular anymore.
*It's true to the degree that the most efficient way to improve is by practicing mechanics. But in reality there are many ways to improve, and improving as efficiently as possible isn't the way everyone plays games.
It's too difficult to have fun in RTS. Fps genre have a huge playerbase by nature, there ought to be one that is fun for your playstyle. And it's mechanics sort of get transferred through different ones.
MOBA is difficult but it's a social driven game. A lot of the players tend to stay with just one MOBA and stuck with it.
RTS on the other hand have so many elements in it. I am teaching my partner to play and even if she can do macro well enough now, she still can't beat very hard AI consistently.
It's easy to forget just how many ways you can lose to. forgot to siege the tanks, not engaging correctly, getting harassed by cloak and needing to scan, missing attack/expand timings.
Imo it also goes against your nature instinct to ignore the army at times to do macro, and extremely frustrating to lose them all when you have been building it up for so long and doing the upgrades.
The lack of new triple A RTS is the same reason as why we don't have new Moba. Too difficult to move existing playerbase and the gamble on capturing a big new playerbase is difficult. I would still hope an indie game to come over and build up a whole new RTS playerbase organically.
@KingzTig have you played much WC3? For me it was a wholly different experience and definitely one I would have stuck to longer if any of my friends were in to it. Way longer time to kill and way more difference in relative unit power avoids a lot of the issues that sound like SC2 issues to me - forgetting to siege tanks and insta-losing, missing macro rounds etc... Wc3 is far from perfect, but it did address those starcraft-ish issues. It strikes me a decent balance between feeling like you have a lot of opportunities for skill expression, but aren't brutally punished if you -don't- do that.
This is by way of saying I agree with the sentiment "It's too difficult to have fun in RTS" but I think part of that statement defines "RTS" as scbw/sc2, which is the pinnacle of hardcore RTS as we know it. It's definitely not difficult to have fun in more casual variants of RTS games!
On April 28 2024 12:55 Fleetfeet wrote: @KingzTig have you played much WC3? For me it was a wholly different experience and definitely one I would have stuck to longer if any of my friends were in to it. Way longer time to kill and way more difference in relative unit power avoids a lot of the issues that sound like SC2 issues to me - forgetting to siege tanks and insta-losing, missing macro rounds etc... Wc3 is far from perfect, but it did address those starcraft-ish issues. It strikes me a decent balance between feeling like you have a lot of opportunities for skill expression, but aren't brutally punished if you -don't- do that.
This is by way of saying I agree with the sentiment "It's too difficult to have fun in RTS" but I think part of that statement defines "RTS" as scbw/sc2, which is the pinnacle of hardcore RTS as we know it. It's definitely not difficult to have fun in more casual variants of RTS games!
I definitely did for a long time and moved onto godsworn for the wc3 fix. I even gave my partner a try, but she just finds being able to build massive army and massive damage is a big plus. Guess it's just the pain we gotta learn to love
Oh damn Godsworn looks real nice, though I keep anything tagged EARLY ACCESS at arm's reach until it actually proves it'll be a full product one day. I'll have to keep an eye on it and check it out one day.
And yeah you're probably right, we just need to embrace the pain.
Seems they are gathering people this week for anoter round of testing etc, Artosis said on monday he would be off for a few days this week for a trip down to California.
Assume it will be regarding this but thats my speculation
On May 02 2024 02:19 Kreuger wrote: Seems they are gathering people this week for anoter round of testing etc, Artosis said on monday he would be off for a few days this week for a trip down to California.
Assume it will be regarding this but thats my speculation
I think he said in the ASL cast of the finals that he is on a family trip.
On May 02 2024 02:19 Kreuger wrote: Seems they are gathering people this week for anoter round of testing etc, Artosis said on monday he would be off for a few days this week for a trip down to California.
Assume it will be regarding this but thats my speculation
I think he said in the ASL cast of the finals that he is on a family trip.
Hmm, pretty sure he in the stream from monday said he would be traveling to Cali with Tastless
On May 02 2024 02:19 Kreuger wrote: Seems they are gathering people this week for anoter round of testing etc, Artosis said on monday he would be off for a few days this week for a trip down to California.
Assume it will be regarding this but thats my speculation
I think he said in the ASL cast of the finals that he is on a family trip.
Hmm, pretty sure he in the stream from monday said he would be traveling to Cali with Tastless
On May 03 2024 18:38 Sabu113 wrote: While exciting, David Kim thoroughly demonstrated his inability to properly balance and design a game with sc2. Not exactly a selling point.
It's only the most popular and successful RTS in history for 14 years by a large margin, what a disappointment indeed. If they care about the game being popular and successful - this is actually a great selling point. Or do you mean SC2 was so successful despite David Kim being bad at this job?
The war hound should have warned everyone off let alone the monstrosities of the brood lord and swarm host. He has utterly no talent. The whole sc2 design team failed to realize that constraints make interesting decisions. It was obvious but disputed at the time. Now we can look with clarity at how miserably imbalanced sc2 was.
David Kim is such a perfect failing upwards story. Total incompetent fraud.
Let's hope he learned from his mistakes in trying to balance SC2 because it was a shitstorm of a Zerg/Terran alternating for most broken race for years with a blip of Protoss sprinkled inn every now and then before whatever the protoss did would be nerfed into the ground
On May 11 2024 20:54 Drahkn wrote: Let's hope he learned from his mistakes in trying to balance SC2 because it was a shitstorm of a Zerg/Terran alternating for most broken race for years with a blip of Protoss sprinkled inn every now and then before whatever the protoss did would be nerfed into the ground
Yes, poor Protoss - they only won the most money in 2013-2014-2015 and second most in 2018-2022 with Terran being the least successful. Before 2023 last year when terrans won the most money was in 2011 - while having worst results out of three races in 2012-2016 and 2018-2022, i.e. basically 11 years in a row being the worst, with one exception in 2017. So much for one of the "most broken race for years".
I just recently watched Tasteless comment on the announcement trailer. He didn't seem to have anything negative to say about it, and in another related video he offered a rather prescient "the rising tide floats all ships". Always a good reminder - even if this particular RTS isn't for me, every new game helps the genre.
Now for the fireworks:
I am super fucking disappointed with how often and strongly they seemed to emphasize:
- That "tedious", boring or redundant mechanical actions should be removed (auto inject in LOTV beta and stacking injects, anyone?) - That you start making "meaningful decisions" from the very first minute (12 worker start in LOTV destroying SC2's early game, anyone?)
They brought up mules/inject/chrono boost as particular examples of things they regretted doing in SC2. I feel the exact opposite - I think those mechanics really _helped_ SC2 - mechanics are flavor, and we need more of them!
I keep hoping, perhaps in vain, that a studio will develop an RTS that heads _towards_ Brood War rather than away from it. But so far this _sounds_ like it ain't it.
One plus is that they emphasized "really large armies", which is a sign that they might be joining Stormgate in pushing towards 300+ supply cap being the default. It only took 25 years!
On May 13 2024 16:23 Qwyn wrote: They brought up mules/inject/chrono boost as particular examples of things they regretted doing in SC2. I feel the exact opposite - I think those mechanics really _helped_ SC2 - mechanics are flavor, and we need more of them!
I keep hoping, perhaps in vain, that a studio will develop an RTS that heads _towards_ Brood War rather than away from it. But so far this _sounds_ like it ain't it.
I do not think some studio will ever use BW as ispiration for future RTS. Currently a multiplayer game has to be SIMPLE to have success, or at least has to give the feeling of being simple. MOBAS are the golden standard in this. They are not inherently simple, but any new player can play it and have the feeling that he is doing plays by hitting a lucky ultimate or by multi killing enemies. In RTS, the fun (multi pronged battles, micro intensive battles) comes if you have the mechanics, instead is just a blob vs blob and that is not really rewarding. The majority of players, that todays comes from "easier" games, won't start playing RTS to fight the interface.
On May 13 2024 16:23 Qwyn wrote: I just recently watched Tasteless comment on the announcement trailer. He didn't seem to have anything negative to say about it, and in another related video he offered a rather prescient "the rising tide floats all ships". Always a good reminder - even if this particular RTS isn't for me, every new game helps the genre.
Now for the fireworks:
I am super fucking disappointed with how often and strongly they seemed to emphasize:
- That "tedious", boring or redundant mechanical actions should be removed (auto inject in LOTV beta and stacking injects, anyone?) - That you start making "meaningful decisions" from the very first minute (12 worker start in LOTV destroying SC2's early game, anyone?)
They brought up mules/inject/chrono boost as particular examples of things they regretted doing in SC2. I feel the exact opposite - I think those mechanics really _helped_ SC2 - mechanics are flavor, and we need more of them!
I keep hoping, perhaps in vain, that a studio will develop an RTS that heads _towards_ Brood War rather than away from it. But so far this _sounds_ like it ain't it.
One plus is that they emphasized "really large armies", which is a sign that they might be joining Stormgate in pushing towards 300+ supply cap being the default. It only took 25 years!
I think the issue with those mechanics was they’re often just busywork that it’s always good to do
There is a mule/scan trade off, but it’s almost never a bad thing to inject, or to spread more creep when you can.
Conceptually I think chrono is by far the most interesting, but it’s one that doesn’t scale as well as they had to somewhat neuter it to not break the early game.
I like the idea of being able to boost all of eco/army/tech and how that dovetails to actual decision-making, but I think there was a flawed implementation where the most intriguing mechanic ended up being the least potent, outside of early/mid-game
On May 13 2024 16:23 Qwyn wrote: I just recently watched Tasteless comment on the announcement trailer. He didn't seem to have anything negative to say about it, and in another related video he offered a rather prescient "the rising tide floats all ships". Always a good reminder - even if this particular RTS isn't for me, every new game helps the genre.
Now for the fireworks:
I am super fucking disappointed with how often and strongly they seemed to emphasize:
- That "tedious", boring or redundant mechanical actions should be removed (auto inject in LOTV beta and stacking injects, anyone?) - That you start making "meaningful decisions" from the very first minute (12 worker start in LOTV destroying SC2's early game, anyone?)
They brought up mules/inject/chrono boost as particular examples of things they regretted doing in SC2. I feel the exact opposite - I think those mechanics really _helped_ SC2 - mechanics are flavor, and we need more of them!
I keep hoping, perhaps in vain, that a studio will develop an RTS that heads _towards_ Brood War rather than away from it. But so far this _sounds_ like it ain't it.
One plus is that they emphasized "really large armies", which is a sign that they might be joining Stormgate in pushing towards 300+ supply cap being the default. It only took 25 years!
Has Tasteless really ever anything negative to say about a new thing?
Regarding the rest of the post: How do you come to the conclusion that mules/inject/chrono and more of those mechanics would be something a team aiming to create a Broodwar-like experience would go for? Broodwar was never designed to be a game with as many unnecessary, repetitive clicks as possible. Those mechanics from SC2 are the epitomy of unnecessary, repetitive extra clicks. It's a bit ironic, but if you think about it, Frostgiant actually did what you are asking for and added more of those mechanics into Stormgate. What do you think of those (honest question)?
On May 03 2024 18:38 Sabu113 wrote: While exciting, David Kim thoroughly demonstrated his inability to properly balance and design a game with sc2. Not exactly a selling point.
It's only the most popular and successful RTS in history for 14 years by a large margin, what a disappointment indeed. If they care about the game being popular and successful - this is actually a great selling point. Or do you mean SC2 was so successful despite David Kim being bad at this job?
Not to nitpick but according to this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games BW vastly outsold sc2 and is still popular and played 25 yrs in. Note most estimate for number of bw copies sold are around 10mil and before remastered. So it may be more.
I met David Kim a few times at wwi and blizzcon and he was pretty nice and seemed to have decent ideas. Ofc sc2 was a trainwreck but i wouldn't put all the blame on him, i wasn't convinxed by DB at all and some design choices clearly wrecked the balance that minor tweaks wouldn't be able to fix too.
Also you other post on P earnings vs balance is stupid, seeing how sos basically single handedly won so much money.
Honestly if the mechanics are simplified it makes faster players faster and just raises the skill floor, it's fine. I wish the discussion was over what will the maps look like, unit design, and lethality. Personally my biggest gripe about these starcraft inspired RTS games are that they adopt the SC2 map meta of only 2 player maps which is incredibly stale. I hope for a starcraft inspired RTS to be capable of having 4 player maps again. SC2 maps are the most boring thing around, and they have to be injected with a gimmick to make them somewhat exciting.
On May 14 2024 00:01 Mutaller wrote: Honestly if the mechanics are simplified it makes faster players faster and just lowers the skill floor, it's fine. I wish the discussion was over what will the maps look like, unit design, and lethality. Personally my biggest gripe about these starcraft inspired RTS games are that they adopt the SC2 map meta of only 2 player maps which is incredibly stale. I hope for a starcraft inspired RTS to be capable of having 4 player maps again. SC2 maps are the most boring thing around, and they have to be injected with a gimmick to make them somewhat exciting.
On May 14 2024 00:01 Mutaller wrote: Honestly if the mechanics are simplified it makes faster players faster and just raises the skill floor, it's fine. I wish the discussion was over what will the maps look like, unit design, and lethality. Personally my biggest gripe about these starcraft inspired RTS games are that they adopt the SC2 map meta of only 2 player maps which is incredibly stale. I hope for a starcraft inspired RTS to be capable of having 4 player maps again. SC2 maps are the most boring thing around, and they have to be injected with a gimmick to make them somewhat exciting.
How about a system that lets you decide where to start? Like before the game you can choose a starting position? If the ressource management is different to SC2, you wouldn't need those fixed spots at all
On May 14 2024 00:01 Mutaller wrote: Honestly if the mechanics are simplified it makes faster players faster and just raises the skill floor, it's fine. I wish the discussion was over what will the maps look like, unit design, and lethality. Personally my biggest gripe about these starcraft inspired RTS games are that they adopt the SC2 map meta of only 2 player maps which is incredibly stale. I hope for a starcraft inspired RTS to be capable of having 4 player maps again. SC2 maps are the most boring thing around, and they have to be injected with a gimmick to make them somewhat exciting.
How about a system that lets you decide where to start? Like before the game you can choose a starting position? If the ressource management is different to SC2, you wouldn't need those fixed spots at all
That feels like a balance nightmare, and liable to either make the map pool much more constrained or the games coinflippy as hell.
On May 14 2024 00:01 Mutaller wrote: Honestly if the mechanics are simplified it makes faster players faster and just raises the skill floor, it's fine. I wish the discussion was over what will the maps look like, unit design, and lethality. Personally my biggest gripe about these starcraft inspired RTS games are that they adopt the SC2 map meta of only 2 player maps which is incredibly stale. I hope for a starcraft inspired RTS to be capable of having 4 player maps again. SC2 maps are the most boring thing around, and they have to be injected with a gimmick to make them somewhat exciting.
How about a system that lets you decide where to start? Like before the game you can choose a starting position? If the ressource management is different to SC2, you wouldn't need those fixed spots at all
I mean a map where where you spawn is random, but there's a chance you scout a spawn and your opponent is not there. In SC2 3 player and 4 player maps result in a snow ball effect where the player benefitting from the asymmetry, by scouting opponent first, likely wins. Most other RTS games have a healthy amount of asymmetry, but SC2 does not, and I fear StormGate will not either. The lack of diverse maps takes away from an entire dimension of the RTS genre. I fear that there is more energy and effort in creating an esport, and standardizing maps from the start than to let maps evolve organically.
On May 14 2024 00:01 Mutaller wrote: Honestly if the mechanics are simplified it makes faster players faster and just raises the skill floor, it's fine. I wish the discussion was over what will the maps look like, unit design, and lethality. Personally my biggest gripe about these starcraft inspired RTS games are that they adopt the SC2 map meta of only 2 player maps which is incredibly stale. I hope for a starcraft inspired RTS to be capable of having 4 player maps again. SC2 maps are the most boring thing around, and they have to be injected with a gimmick to make them somewhat exciting.
How about a system that lets you decide where to start? Like before the game you can choose a starting position? If the ressource management is different to SC2, you wouldn't need those fixed spots at all
I mean a map where where you spawn is random, but there's a chance you scout a spawn and your opponent is not there. In SC2 3 player and 4 player maps result in a snow ball effect where the player benefitting from the asymmetry, by scouting opponent first, likely wins. Most other RTS games have a healthy amount of asymmetry, but SC2 does not, and I fear StormGate will not either. The lack of diverse maps takes away from an entire dimension of the RTS genre. I fear that there is more energy and effort in creating an esport, and standardizing maps from the start than to let maps evolve organically.
Aside from other factors, this is partly due to SC2 being very asymmetric in terms of its factions. So add map asymmetry to the equation and it gets that bit harder to maintain the fairness/fun factor as one is making it more varied. This is exacerbated even further the more players and combinations you add, which is a large part of why team games have never really caught the collective imagination.
In a sense SC2’s maps have evolved pretty organically really. It’s just unfortunate that how the game has developed when players got their hands on it has somewhat constricted variety.
I do feel shooting for an eSports-first design can constrain variety and interesting experimentation for sure. But on the flip side it’s hard to discard completely if one’s developing a competitive-focused game.
A game like Brood War was able to organically develop into what it became but with that development are plenty of lessons to learn subsequently. We’ve now got decades across multiple games, some quite different of what serious full-time players can and will do to break various games to take into account.
It’s quite a tricky balancing act, one wants variety and games looking different in a ladder session, and enabling interesting emergent scenarios and creativity. But too unpredictable and volatile can be frustrating, or take away from that feeling of gradually mastering something that I think many enjoy about RTS
Remains very much to be seen if Frost Giant or others can navigate these various pitfalls successfully
On May 14 2024 00:01 Mutaller wrote: Honestly if the mechanics are simplified it makes faster players faster and just raises the skill floor, it's fine. I wish the discussion was over what will the maps look like, unit design, and lethality. Personally my biggest gripe about these starcraft inspired RTS games are that they adopt the SC2 map meta of only 2 player maps which is incredibly stale. I hope for a starcraft inspired RTS to be capable of having 4 player maps again. SC2 maps are the most boring thing around, and they have to be injected with a gimmick to make them somewhat exciting.
How about a system that lets you decide where to start? Like before the game you can choose a starting position? If the ressource management is different to SC2, you wouldn't need those fixed spots at all
I mean a map where where you spawn is random, but there's a chance you scout a spawn and your opponent is not there. In SC2 3 player and 4 player maps result in a snow ball effect where the player benefitting from the asymmetry, by scouting opponent first, likely wins. Most other RTS games have a healthy amount of asymmetry, but SC2 does not, and I fear StormGate will not either. The lack of diverse maps takes away from an entire dimension of the RTS genre. I fear that there is more energy and effort in creating an esport, and standardizing maps from the start than to let maps evolve organically.
On May 14 2024 00:01 Mutaller wrote: Honestly if the mechanics are simplified it makes faster players faster and just raises the skill floor, it's fine. I wish the discussion was over what will the maps look like, unit design, and lethality. Personally my biggest gripe about these starcraft inspired RTS games are that they adopt the SC2 map meta of only 2 player maps which is incredibly stale. I hope for a starcraft inspired RTS to be capable of having 4 player maps again. SC2 maps are the most boring thing around, and they have to be injected with a gimmick to make them somewhat exciting.
How about a system that lets you decide where to start? Like before the game you can choose a starting position? If the ressource management is different to SC2, you wouldn't need those fixed spots at all
That feels like a balance nightmare, and liable to either make the map pool much more constrained or the games coinflippy as hell.
I meant it more so that all players state before the match where they will begin. Example: Player A picks map, player B picks first spawn and for game two the other way around. So you see where the other play will start. Sooner rather than later every map will have its meta spawn points and counter spawn points obviously. Would bring another flavor to the game though. You could pick a offense spawn point and expo then behind further away from enemy for example. Rush distances would wildy vary. Guess some sort of defense mechanism would have to be build in the first buildings. Anyway just some spitballing going on
HW is a great series however I d say it s extremely difficult and a bit of a mess too. HW3 seems to be departing from the previous 2 and according to the people/posts I follow on this, not in a great way. The game doesnt even look completely finished either.
So like Harris1st is saying it s the nichest of niche.The 3D element essentially makes it another genre (or subgenre if you will) and on top of that soem choices for HW3 seem poorly received. Now I havent tried myself so this is second hand account but the community being so small and having already so many negative opinions is a bit disappointing for the game
On May 15 2024 23:03 WGT-Baal wrote: HW is a great series however I d say it s extremely difficult and a bit of a mess too. HW3 seems to be departing from the previous 2 and according to the people/posts I follow on this, not in a great way. The game doesnt even look completely finished either.
So like Harris1st is saying it s the nichest of niche.The 3D element essentially makes it another genre (or subgenre if you will) and on top of that soem choices for HW3 seem poorly received. Now I havent tried myself so this is second hand account but the community being so small and having already so many negative opinions is a bit disappointing for the game
I played it during Next Fest and it felt finished polished. Maybe some polish needed in the controls and HUD as I had my difficulties with those. I don't think the game is for everyone, certainly not for me, but I do think it's a good game.
On May 15 2024 23:03 WGT-Baal wrote: HW is a great series however I d say it s extremely difficult and a bit of a mess too. HW3 seems to be departing from the previous 2 and according to the people/posts I follow on this, not in a great way. The game doesnt even look completely finished either.
So like Harris1st is saying it s the nichest of niche.The 3D element essentially makes it another genre (or subgenre if you will) and on top of that soem choices for HW3 seem poorly received. Now I havent tried myself so this is second hand account but the community being so small and having already so many negative opinions is a bit disappointing for the game
I played it during Next Fest and it felt finished polished. Maybe some polish needed in the controls and HUD as I had my difficulties with those. I don't think the game is for everyone, certainly not for me, but I do think it's a good game.
Afaik the camera settings and the lack of submodules and customization on ships is what most hw2 players are complaining about in hw3 and the campaign having no specific story too. So those 3 points probably led to calling it unfinished. From the videos it did look visually nice and gameplay looked smooth (aside from the camera options that is)
On May 15 2024 23:03 WGT-Baal wrote: HW is a great series however I d say it s extremely difficult and a bit of a mess too. HW3 seems to be departing from the previous 2 and according to the people/posts I follow on this, not in a great way. The game doesnt even look completely finished either.
So like Harris1st is saying it s the nichest of niche.The 3D element essentially makes it another genre (or subgenre if you will) and on top of that soem choices for HW3 seem poorly received. Now I havent tried myself so this is second hand account but the community being so small and having already so many negative opinions is a bit disappointing for the game
I played it during Next Fest and it felt finished polished. Maybe some polish needed in the controls and HUD as I had my difficulties with those. I don't think the game is for everyone, certainly not for me, but I do think it's a good game.
Afaik the camera settings and the lack of submodules and customization on ships is what most hw2 players are complaining about in hw3 and the campaign having no specific story too. So those 3 points probably led to calling it unfinished. From the videos it did look visually nice and gameplay looked smooth (aside from the camera options that is)
Ah yeah, that makes sense. I haven't played any of the previous titles so I didn't know those things were missing/changed.