Live data from Hacker News

The Future of RTS

docs.google.com

171–180 of 275 posts

Re: The Future of RTS

#171

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…

"From the depths" just turned into a logistic based rts, there's a block building aspect to it but plenty units on the workshop if you want to skip that part

It's also fairly often on good sales

Re: The Future of RTS

#172
post #140
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding another game with good logistics to the list of games: The Wargame series from Eugen (the most recent one being Wargames: Red Dragon) Logistics is a huge part of it, your armies can run out of ammo, or be stranded without fuel - there are dedicated units used for resupply. Supply dumps, supply columns, and their protection, is a big part of the game as well.

Note that Eugen have moved onto steel division. Mechanically it's mostly an evolution of wargame but moves the setting from cold war -> modern day of wargame to world war 2

Steel division 2 is completely broken at the moment, with axis enjoying ridiculous Winrate and tournaments relegated to mirror matches for the inability of eugeen to balance the game

Some mods fix the most glaring problems, but they require investing in all dlc and make almost impossible to find an online match

Re: The Future of RTS

#173
post #64

I think RTS can evolve, but I don't think you can compete with SC2 in the style where it excels, after more than a decade of balance patches. You can make games with a different focus though. SC2 is a short (~10-20 minutes) 1 on 1 APMs contest. (APM=actions per minutes). APMs are more than fast clicking. No pro player managed to do everything they know they should do. It is about prioritization. Even I, a modest gold…

> SC2 is a short (~10-20 minutes) 1 on 1 APMs contest.

This is the first time I learned this. (Sorry tongue in cheek a bit.) But yeah as an eSport (1v1), or in modes where people play 1 on 1 (and APM tends to win), your statement is true.

It is not the only mode you can play SC2, and while it might the most recognized or popular setup, the people I play with prefer basically ever mode except that one. (Many of us also enjoyed the campaigns!)

Re: The Future of RTS

#174

>> Simply put, most RTS games are exhausting. As someone who has achieved a relatively high level of play in numerous popular RTS games, my best coaching advice for the vast majority of players would be to play more and to play faster. In most instances being able to micro, macro, and multi task is the biggest obstacle keeping players from pushing their play to the next level. Many times, I hear players getting frust…

how to make the next big e-sports RTS hit, instead of a game that many people will want to play

The problem is that we want to do both. The competitors to RTSes, games like League of Legends, Fortnite, Rocket League, and Hearthstone, are all (very different) games that are enjoyable to play across the full spectrum of skill levels.

RTS games really seem to be split into two categories: indie games that are appealing to casual players and competitive games that appeal only to esports competitors. StarCraft Brood War may be the most popular RTS from a spectator standpoint but it is a pretty terrible game to play if you just want to unwind after work.

So then the question is: why do we want both? The theory is that a highly popular spectator esport drives sales for the game. If your game doesn't do both then it either needs to succeed on its own (without any esports fame) in an overcrowded market or it's a spectator sport without any low-level players (and somehow needs to make money only from high level tournament play).

Re: The Future of RTS

#175

AOE2 variety comes from many different map scripts with many different seeds, not so much from the civilizations/units/techs. The doc talks about map generations in the AOE2 space section, but given the rational for prioritizing diversity, I expect this the variety in map generation should lead to a higher variety score. I really enjoying watching the AOE2 tournament scene: https://liquipedia.net/ageofempires/Portal:…

I find it rather funny the author rating Starcraft with good variety. The game made every unit ranged so they wouldn't need to bother balancing melee attacks. I understand he means that each faction has different units, but imagine how boring AoE2 would be if all units were archers.

Can you explain what you mean by "made every unit ranged"?

Does that mean that zerglings, zealots, ultralisks, firebats/hellions, banelings... (did I miss any) are ranged attack units? Because they swing claws and blades and flamethrowers around?

Re: The Future of RTS

#176

I clicked just to see what the op would say about warcraft 3 and the very first point is a clear indication of inadequate understanding of the game at elite level of play. Spacing is important and in fact a big part of the game but not in a Starcrafty kind of way. Different maps allow for different tactics around map control based on race and ability to creep and gain map control. Its not about holding a high ground…

Yes exactly. I would also debate the popularity point: how many games released by 2003 (release year of The Frozen Throne) still have an active pro scene, meaning people whose job is to play this game at tournaments?

With the rise of streaming I'd venture that most pro players do not rely solely on tournaments (and their tournament sponsoring) anymore, but the point remains that the game seems to have seen an increase in popularity in the past few years.

The Warcraft 3 scene is nothing compared to the biggest names in esport, but it is still remarkably healthy. One reason for this is that Blizzard let the community take the lead unofficially with things like https://www.w3champions.com/ which is basically like Battle.net but better than Battle.net has ever been in many regards.

I think it also helps that WC3, as a RTS, can still be relatively enjoyable as a beginner: fewer units to control, fewer resources and buildings to manage, and at the very beginning (say, with 50 APM) focusing mostly on the first hero (meaning a single unit) is clearly the best return on investment to increase one's win rate, which can become apparent after just a few games. Few RTS games are able to both offer such a gentle learning curve and the depth required for people having played the game for more than 17 years to still refine their strategies.

Re: The Future of RTS

#177
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.

Music is often the same way. Any beginner with an ear can tell they are not great, especially performing with others who are. They get shy and won't play, for fear of sounding bad.

Re: The Future of RTS

#178
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd actually recommend you play your first full game modless (plain vanilla). That should give you a feel for what the vanilla game is like, and what you like and don't like about it, so you'll be in much better shape to make your own decisions as to which mods look interesting or useful to you. Then I'd experiment with mods to find out which one you like or not. Some of the most popular mods are probably not too bad…

I've always shied away from mods in games. I vaguely recall playing a game and finishing it, then I tried it with some cheat code and all of a sudden the game became completely meaningless. There's something very important tied into the struggle and limitations. On the other hand, I think things like keybindings and mods that fix problems are probably ok (personally).

In my experience modding every popular game to death, the most beloved and generally popular overhaul mods make the game significantly harder or more complex.

Factorio: Bob's mods, Angel's mods

Minecraft: Literally every tech mod, most magic

Skyrim: Requiem

Fallout 4: Horizon

Re: The Future of RTS

#179

I tried to play SC2 for the first time in years last night and the servers were erroring with Global Timeout and everyone in chat was complaining so I logged out and might not try again.

Queue times for matches can be really rough as well. I used to love a good 4v4 but it can take 5-10 minutes to find one some nights. Nevermind errors like yours, yikes

Re: The Future of RTS

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might seem silly, but even as a grown man, Factorio scares me. It seems line it could be a trigger to fall into a deep chasm of aspberger like focus for weeks.

I've found that it engages the same parts of my brain as writing software, and I only have a limited amount of time each day that I'm able to focus on either activity. So to some degree it is self-balancing, but it's also possible to lose 4-6 hours while playing it if you get in the zone.

This is why I could never get into it nor Zachtronics games. Just feels like work.
Post reply on HN