On October 22 2020 18:13 Dave4 wrote: This is wonderful news but also sad as it will be years before we ever get to play it.
Still, glad to see some of the Blizz heroes of past looking to reforge games for gamers rather than Activision/EA's pure focus on money at the expense of the communities that have made them the companies they are.
On Average, how much money do you have to spend in order to play a Blizzard or Activision game?
Around $50 for SC2 at the moment I believe. It wasn't so cheap at release though, most of their titles are full priced AAA games so are $60 at launch.
On October 22 2020 02:05 [Phantom] wrote: This is my advice for the studio: make the RTS good to watch from the ground up, while also making it free to play/accessible to the masses.
Sc2 success was because it was made from the beginning to be an espectator esports. And it succeeded. Compared to league of legends the ammmount of people who watches sc2 esports was an order of magnitude biggest in comparison to the playerbase.
I don't remember the exact numbers but it was something like 3% of lol players watches esports vs 40% for StarCraft players. I would need to look at the stats again. This was in 2012.
The problem was that league just simply had a massive playerbase.
If you can make a game that's great to watch, that also appeals to the masses. That's the winning formula. Easier said than done of course.
SC2 succeeded because it was "SC" and because it came out when neither LoL nor Dota2 was in position to massively drain viewerbase. I'm not convinved that esports orientation was really that big of a factor, and I suspect it kind of inhibited growth of playerbase.
Each massively popular esport title has it's own path.
I have serious doubts whether sc2-like RTS game can really contend with games like LoL or Dota2 or CS:GO in popularity without reinventing the genre. Maybe s.t. like WC3 but team-based.
I'm curious how you reach this conclusion and don't go the step further that mobas are the reinventing of the RTS genre that cut out the less desirable parts. Balance is a lot easier to manage when all the players have access to the same heroes. There is a fine art to asymmetrical advantages of different races in RTS, but this is typically covered by heroes having different timings, strengths, and weaknesses.
On October 23 2020 09:24 Manit0u wrote: I think SC2 will go F2P sometime next month. And yeah, I meant the campaign too (price of a full game if you will, not just a part of it).
To be fair, the WoL campaign is already F2P, and I think that is a tremendous value for being free and is a great introduction for new players. I don't think making the other campaigns F2P will help with player base growth or retention all that much to make up for the lost revenue. I think the current F2P system is already fairly generous with the amount of content and features it offers.
Yeah, I think RTS is doomed because the overall fun parts of the games are also stressful. We've seen all kinds of distillation of fun elements of the genre through mobas (Which then were even further distilled into moba-chess) or squad-based unit control games (footy frenzy), but I don't see a 'proper' basebuilding RTS getting much time in the sun unless it takes advantage of these distilled fun ideas and feeds those lessons into a more collaborative battleground, such as a FFA BGH derivative or something 'fun' that you -also- want your friends to play.
Basically, there's a lot to learn about what people enjoy from the RTS genre from the dearth of custom maps, and I think you need those 'custom maps' to lure people in to playing the 'actual game'.
On October 26 2020 02:12 StarStruck wrote: RTS competing with other games like F2P, MOBAS etc.
Those days are long over.
RTS had it's time in the sun. I find it highly unlikely another RTS will compete globally. Only market place I can see it ramping it up is China.
I think the idea is to shift the standards and have an appropriate business model and expectations. It's not going to be a huge stadium filling esport, but I think its going to have a niche appeal. Like, look at Total War fans, they're getting new games, CA isn't going to abandon the genre. We need a studio like that. Or I suppose the most analogous thing to RTS games is fighting games. I think for RTS to survive, developers and the community should look to fighting games since that's the closest thing to us.
On October 26 2020 02:12 StarStruck wrote: RTS competing with other games like F2P, MOBAS etc.
Those days are long over.
RTS had it's time in the sun. I find it highly unlikely another RTS will compete globally. Only market place I can see it ramping it up is China.
I think the idea is to shift the standards and have an appropriate business model and expectations. It's not going to be a huge stadium filling esport, but I think its going to have a niche appeal. Like, look at Total War fans, they're getting new games, CA isn't going to abandon the genre. We need a studio like that. Or I suppose the most analogous thing to RTS games is fighting games. I think for RTS to survive, developers and the community should look to fighting games since that's the closest thing to us.
What everyone should look up to has already been done. Unfortunately at the time it was introduced it was way ahead of the times and didn't get enough traction.
On October 26 2020 02:12 StarStruck wrote: RTS competing with other games like F2P, MOBAS etc.
Those days are long over.
RTS had it's time in the sun. I find it highly unlikely another RTS will compete globally. Only market place I can see it ramping it up is China.
I think the idea is to shift the standards and have an appropriate business model and expectations. It's not going to be a huge stadium filling esport, but I think its going to have a niche appeal. Like, look at Total War fans, they're getting new games, CA isn't going to abandon the genre. We need a studio like that. Or I suppose the most analogous thing to RTS games is fighting games. I think for RTS to survive, developers and the community should look to fighting games since that's the closest thing to us.
What everyone should look up to has already been done. Unfortunately at the time it was introduced it was way ahead of the times and didn't get enough traction.
We need a modern-day version of Savage.
If I had to pick an existing system to be redone, I would love to see the card system from AoE3 brought back. If you're unaware, it allows for major strategic decisions tied to xp, which you get for everything (building units/buildings, gathering resources, killing enemy units, and also strategic points that you can invest in to take advantage of). It was a fantastic system that allowed for very interesting strategies and another resource to manage.
On October 26 2020 02:12 StarStruck wrote: RTS competing with other games like F2P, MOBAS etc.
Those days are long over.
RTS had it's time in the sun. I find it highly unlikely another RTS will compete globally. Only market place I can see it ramping it up is China.
I think the idea is to shift the standards and have an appropriate business model and expectations. It's not going to be a huge stadium filling esport, but I think its going to have a niche appeal. Like, look at Total War fans, they're getting new games, CA isn't going to abandon the genre. We need a studio like that. Or I suppose the most analogous thing to RTS games is fighting games. I think for RTS to survive, developers and the community should look to fighting games since that's the closest thing to us.
What everyone should look up to has already been done. Unfortunately at the time it was introduced it was way ahead of the times and didn't get enough traction.
We need a modern-day version of Savage.
If I had to pick an existing system to be redone, I would love to see the card system from AoE3 brought back. If you're unaware, it allows for major strategic decisions tied to xp, which you get for everything (building units/buildings, gathering resources, killing enemy units, and also strategic points that you can invest in to take advantage of). It was a fantastic system that allowed for very interesting strategies and another resource to manage.
On October 26 2020 02:12 StarStruck wrote: RTS competing with other games like F2P, MOBAS etc.
Those days are long over.
RTS had it's time in the sun. I find it highly unlikely another RTS will compete globally. Only market place I can see it ramping it up is China.
I think the idea is to shift the standards and have an appropriate business model and expectations. It's not going to be a huge stadium filling esport, but I think its going to have a niche appeal. Like, look at Total War fans, they're getting new games, CA isn't going to abandon the genre. We need a studio like that. Or I suppose the most analogous thing to RTS games is fighting games. I think for RTS to survive, developers and the community should look to fighting games since that's the closest thing to us.
What everyone should look up to has already been done. Unfortunately at the time it was introduced it was way ahead of the times and didn't get enough traction.
We need a modern-day version of Savage.
If I had to pick an existing system to be redone, I would love to see the card system from AoE3 brought back. If you're unaware, it allows for major strategic decisions tied to xp, which you get for everything (building units/buildings, gathering resources, killing enemy units, and also strategic points that you can invest in to take advantage of). It was a fantastic system that allowed for very interesting strategies and another resource to manage.
Something like commander abilities in CoH?
Similar, but I feel like the power levels are completely different.
On October 26 2020 02:12 StarStruck wrote: RTS competing with other games like F2P, MOBAS etc.
Those days are long over.
RTS had it's time in the sun. I find it highly unlikely another RTS will compete globally. Only market place I can see it ramping it up is China.
I think the idea is to shift the standards and have an appropriate business model and expectations. It's not going to be a huge stadium filling esport, but I think its going to have a niche appeal. Like, look at Total War fans, they're getting new games, CA isn't going to abandon the genre. We need a studio like that. Or I suppose the most analogous thing to RTS games is fighting games. I think for RTS to survive, developers and the community should look to fighting games since that's the closest thing to us.
What everyone should look up to has already been done. Unfortunately at the time it was introduced it was way ahead of the times and didn't get enough traction.
We need a modern-day version of Savage.
If I had to pick an existing system to be redone, I would love to see the card system from AoE3 brought back. If you're unaware, it allows for major strategic decisions tied to xp, which you get for everything (building units/buildings, gathering resources, killing enemy units, and also strategic points that you can invest in to take advantage of). It was a fantastic system that allowed for very interesting strategies and another resource to manage.
The problem with that kind of system is that it takes away from the point have buildings in the first place: that it is possible to scout a tech or tech path and respond to that tech and tech path with all the resulting attempt to scout, hide or mislead your tech.
On October 22 2020 02:05 [Phantom] wrote: This is my advice for the studio: make the RTS good to watch from the ground up, while also making it free to play/accessible to the masses.
Sc2 success was because it was made from the beginning to be an espectator esports. And it succeeded. Compared to league of legends the ammmount of people who watches sc2 esports was an order of magnitude biggest in comparison to the playerbase.
I don't remember the exact numbers but it was something like 3% of lol players watches esports vs 40% for StarCraft players. I would need to look at the stats again. This was in 2012.
The problem was that league just simply had a massive playerbase.
If you can make a game that's great to watch, that also appeals to the masses. That's the winning formula. Easier said than done of course.
SC2 succeeded because it was "SC" and because it came out when neither LoL nor Dota2 was in position to massively drain viewerbase. I'm not convinved that esports orientation was really that big of a factor, and I suspect it kind of inhibited growth of playerbase.
Each massively popular esport title has it's own path.
I have serious doubts whether sc2-like RTS game can really contend with games like LoL or Dota2 or CS:GO in popularity without reinventing the genre. Maybe s.t. like WC3 but team-based.
I'm curious how you reach this conclusion and don't go the step further that mobas are the reinventing of the RTS genre that cut out the less desirable parts. Balance is a lot easier to manage when all the players have access to the same heroes. There is a fine art to asymmetrical advantages of different races in RTS, but this is typically covered by heroes having different timings, strengths, and weaknesses.
I can see MOBAs as reinvention of RTS but that's reinvention beyond recognition (almost). The RTSes as they currently exist are not really as popular to watch. Perhaps it's due to the amount of how many things are happening across the map.
I also see auto battlers as a successor to an RTS. I think that was part of the appeal of the rise of the auto battler genre in the last 2 years, was that it gave a nice venue for people to make awesome armies and have em clash it out without having to worry about apm/resources and the like.
I can see MOBAs as a different sort of RTS, but auto battlers are not a type of RTS, as inherent in RTS real time and the ability to micro. Autochess is a turn based game, not real time; they are two different type of games.
