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

111–120 of 275 posts

Re: The Future of RTS

#111

Post by Kinrany »

jtolmar wrote: post #85

Some problems I'd note for any resurgence of the RTS genre: * There hasn't been a huge RTS hit in ages, so large studios aren't going to push large chunks of cash into them. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and you may disagree with whether large studios should act this way, but that doesn't matter, because the observable fact is they do. * RTS games are still pretty expensive to make well. There hasn't been a breako…

> Streamers rely on their ability to self-commentate, but nobody can play an RTS while talking.

For Starcraft 2 there's replay commentary.

(I sometimes watch Lowko and WinterStarcraft. It's interesting how just watching pro players can unlock skills you wouldn't consider otherwise.)

Re: The Future of RTS

#112

Post by Aeolun »

navane wrote: post #10
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…

Knights and merchants did it. Including feeding your standing army. Was a pain in de ass.

Only because every unit had to be fed individually :P

Re: The Future of RTS

#113

Post by Aerroon »

missurunha wrote: post #105
DerSaidin wrote: post #90

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.

Melee units are effectively ranged units with a very short range. One of the most interesting aspects of games is how different ranges interact. Whether that's "melee range" or "slightly further than melee range" really shouldn't matter that much. Also, zerglings, zealots, ultralisks, dark templar and workers are melee in StarCraft 2.

Re: The Future of RTS

#114

Post by sundarurfriend »

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.

> There is one thing I've noticed about RTS: every player seems to think they are awful at the game.

Dota 2 is another game where I've noticed this trend.

> This actually keeps a lot of players from even trying online play.

True with Dota 2 as well, lots of people that only play locally with bots, or resort to just watching streamers and others play it, because they're tired of the feeling of "not being good enough" while playing.

The common factor, I think, is that in both cases there are a hundred things going on in parallel every second, a hundred ways you could be optimizing things, and crucially, you could list those things yourself if you were given time - but you never are, so every moment you're aware that you're doing something somewhere suboptimally. Mistakes don't feel like "Ah, interesting, I've learnt not to do that", instead it's "Of course I should have done this instead, it's obvious, I must be an idiot to not have done this" - even though in the moment you were getting a dozen other things right, and just didn't have the mental capacity to stretch to this additional thing.

So any skill growth in the game happens slowly by your mind learning to make many of the optimal decisions subconsciously, thus making things slowly more manageable. But that's not an easily visible, tangible change. And it still leaves you with twenty things you could be doing better, that are "obvious" in retrospect.

Re: The Future of RTS

#115

Post by Aeolun »

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 think that’s because there is no point where you can easily come back. Once you are behind defeat is often a foregone conclusion.

At least, in my games it generally comes down to a single battle.

Re: The Future of RTS

#116

Post by Kinrany »

Kinrany wrote: post #111
jtolmar wrote: post #85

Some problems I'd note for any resurgence of the RTS genre: * There hasn't been a huge RTS hit in ages, so large studios aren't going to push large chunks of cash into them. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and you may disagree with whether large studios should act this way, but that doesn't matter, because the observable fact is they do. * RTS games are still pretty expensive to make well. There hasn't been a breako…

> Streamers rely on their ability to self-commentate, but nobody can play an RTS while talking. For Starcraft 2 there's replay commentary. (I sometimes watch Lowko and WinterStarcraft. It's interesting how just watching pro players can unlock skills you wouldn't consider otherwise.)

> Even back in the heyday of RTS, everyone I knew played custom maps rather than the actual RTS. I'm pretty sure that crowd is all in Roblox or modded Minecraft these days.

Roblox does have a couple RTS games! They're not very good.

Feels like an RTS engine could lead to an explosion and, with cross-pollination with other common mechanics, create a couple new genres.

Re: The Future of RTS

#117

Post by kybernetikos »

Kinrany wrote: post #116
Kinrany wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Streamers rely on their ability to self-commentate, but nobody can play an RTS while talking. For Starcraft 2 there's replay commentary. (I sometimes watch Lowko and WinterStarcraft. It's interesting how just watching pro players can unlock skills you wouldn't consider otherwise.)

> Even back in the heyday of RTS, everyone I knew played custom maps rather than the actual RTS. I'm pretty sure that crowd is all in Roblox or modded Minecraft these days. Roblox does have a couple RTS games! They're not very good. Feels like an RTS engine could lead to an explosion and, with cross-pollination with other common mechanics, create a couple new genres.

The Spring Engine is still active: https://springrts.com/

Re: The Future of RTS

#118

Post by Kinrany »

kybernetikos wrote: post #117
Kinrany wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even back in the heyday of RTS, everyone I knew played custom maps rather than the actual RTS. I'm pretty sure that crowd is all in Roblox or modded Minecraft these days. Roblox does have a couple RTS games! They're not very good. Feels like an RTS engine could lead to an explosion and, with cross-pollination with other common mechanics, create a couple new genres.

The Spring Engine is still active: https://springrts.com/

Roblox/Minecraft have the advantage of networking/infrastructure being dead simple/free.

Re: The Future of RTS

#119

Post by kybernetikos »

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…

Part of the problem is that there is so much to do that you tend to let the AI do almost all of it, and then get incredibly frustrated when it sends your key resource gathering units through known dangerous territory.

To really do this kind of gameplay well, you'd need to have the ability to task military units to guard supply train units, and for them to have the kind of intelligence / user interface that doesn't just have them defenselessly wandering around an opponents base.

It's been interesting to read the https://acoup.blog/ take on the importance of supply chains and logistics in warfare, and how to organise a properly defended supply chain. I agree that it's an area that could be addressed interestingly, but it'd be a game made out of the bits that other games deliberately abstracted away because they were hard to do well, so I think it'd be a real challenge. Even fiction tends to abstract away from the details of these things because it's so hard to make interesting.

Re: The Future of RTS

#120

Post by stevedzreams »

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.

RTS games are fairly unique in that you always know you could be doing things slightly faster, constantly. Yes, you can make a big mistake that loses you the game (like losing a queen badly in chess), but often if you just did your macro tasks a little faster you would have won, or scouted every 30 seconds instead of 35. The article touches on this in respect to APM.
Post reply on HN