Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Future of RTS

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 275 posts

Re: The Future of RTS

#121

Post by baby »

I agree with everything here. The learning curve is too steep for RTS in general: it is not clear how to improve. It’s also not fun that there is no mechanism to cap APM. I’ve also always dreaded starting 1v1 due to the mental stress. I get the same playing Go. I really wish there were more competitive 2v2 or more.

Anyone here remembers natural selection I and II? They were hybrid RTS/FPS where a single player would play an RTS game and other players would play units. I felt like there was something to be explored more there...

Also one thing that always created great space control were front lines: total commander has that, and capture the flag (I remember league of legends having a “dominion” mode that was really fun). I also remember an RTS where you could occupy buildings.

Re: The Future of RTS

#122

Post by anon777778 »

shash7 wrote: post #49

Surprising to see no mention of Supreme Commander. This game isn't just alive, its thriving and getting popular(the FAF mod, not the base game). Maybe RTS games are not being actively made but the mods are very much alive.

I think that Supreme Commander has the best UI in the RTS world.

This is the only game where I saw things like queing tasks for all units (whole construction schemes), estimated time of finishing each task, unrestricted zoom (from map view to the single unit) and multiple minor utility functions, like patrols of engineers (that can help creating units) or "help" function for factories (queued units in one factory and the other ones helping it).

Those functions greatly reduced cognitive load and micromanagement of most task, allowing the player to focus on the grand strategy.

I really hope that next AAA RTS game will be greatly inspired by this UI.

Re: The Future of RTS

#123

Post by baby »

hjnilsson wrote: post #68
Synaesthesia wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the biggest problem is just how quickly units do damage and how fast fights go. It's way too fast! Brood War has slower fights and it better for it.

Indeed. While the damage & health numbers are the same between games, the improved “MicroAI” of the units makes them much more efficient. Doubling the health of all units, would make the game more interesting.

Interestingly that’s my biggest issue with dota2, and with ssb (I thought the first ssb64 was amazing because it was pure skill, after that it’s just a mess)

Re: The Future of RTS

#124

Post by baby »

TwoBit wrote: post #88

It's sad to me that this author's only view of RTS is as an esport. If that's how it is then I'll be fine if there's never another RTS, and 95% of the public doesn't care about esports either.

I’m sorry but the whole points of RTS is competition. It’s like complaining that we’re talking about tweaks to make chess more competitive.

Re: The Future of RTS

#125

Post by baby »

Gunax wrote: post #56

There is one thing I've noticed about RTS: every player seems to think they are awful at the game. This seems to be the opposite of most games, where players tend to overestimate their skill. This actually keeps a lot of players from even trying online play. There is something different about RTS... I think in some way they aren't fun. They are really quite stressful to play in ways other games aren't.

I always felt like it was like playing Go. Very stressful.

Re: The Future of RTS

#126

Post by cat199 »

Pxtl wrote: post #46

Honestly, I think the RTS genre is too hidebound to the origins of the genre. Too focused on trees of units and factories that existed originally because of singleplayer campaigns and trickling out upgrades. I mean, the current monster of the genre - SC2 - can trace many of its gameplay mechanics and units back to a game that came out in 1994, which was of course primarily designed for single-player gaming. An RTS ba…

> I mean, the current monster of the genre - SC2 - can trace many of its gameplay mechanics and units back to a game that came out in 1994, which was of course primarily designed for single-player gaming.

Couldn't the same be roughly said for FPS+wolf3d/doom/quake? or RPG/Zelda/Tomb Raider/whatever ?

Re: The Future of RTS

#127

Post by theshrike79 »

gamegoblin wrote: post #4

Something that isn't significantly touched on here that most RTSes neglect is physical logistics. That is, actually getting resources from the point of collection to the point of consumption. In most RTSes, once you collect resources they essentially go into a magic resource counter in the cloud. You can collect wood on one side of the map, and instantly create a building with that on the other side of the map. I wou…

In Mindustry[1] you need to create conveyors and other transport methods to take ammunition to turrets. During late game you also need to power structures by generating electricity and taking it with wires to the structures that require it.

[1] https://mindustrygame.github.io

Re: The Future of RTS

#128

Post by djhworld »

Growing up I remember playing a lot of AoE and AoE2 with my school friends online, over dialup connections.

I was never into any competitive scene, we were all probably very bad at the game but it was fun. The enjoyment came from the building, designing your base, and then the wars to defend or attack your opponents.

This was back in the early 2000s, I've never played an RTS game since.

Re: The Future of RTS

#129

Post by astrobe_ »

noxvilleza wrote: post #11

Whilst I certainly have huge respect for HuK, I feel that either his use of the categories in the article as perhaps a bit simplistic. Many of the points he mentions are really intertwined - most importantly balance vs variety: it's very hard to score highly on both. SC2 has 3 very distinct races (he gives it a 8.8 for variety), hence there are just 6 possible matchups. AoE 2 (DE) has 35 (he gives it a 3), making ove…

Total annihilation took a completely different approach of having factories instead of races. I only know TA-like games through Zero-K, but factories introduce a lot of diversity and perhaps less imbalance risks because players always have the option to go for a mirror match-up (i.e. choosing what is considered the best factory for the map being played).

Some game designers claim that Blizzard's uses races to keep players interested by creating imbalances. The idea being that you keep players interested by making slight changes all the time to respond to alleged imbalances from the players.

Re: The Future of RTS

#130

Post by kzrdude »

universa1 wrote: post #109
lostmsu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got Settlers II HD Edition on GoG, and it made us a couple of good evenings.

And there's a new one in the making, hopefully sticking to the more classical settlers 2-4 mechanics and feel... And not the later iterations of the series... There is also Foundation, by a smallish canadian studio (iirc), that kinda is a mix between settlers and sim city :-)

There is an open source reimplementation of the settlers II engine, called RttR and it works flawlessly (better than the original for me).

There's also an open source clone of Settlers II called Widelands.

Post reply on HN