Support NeoGAF

[Nirolak]

Slightly off topic, but is the single player content for Starcraft 2 complete? I don't have much interest in playing competitive since Dota 2 fills that niche for me, but I wouldn't mind a good RTS campaign.

The main campaign is complete.

That said, they're doing independent stand alone story DLC on an ongoing basis in lieu of more expansion packs (and well, they implied in lieu of StarCraft 3 for now as well), so if you don't want to play it until all of those are completed, you will probably have to wait until they announce their reimagining of the RTS or those stop performing well financially.

 

[Falk]

Warcraft 3 i thought was slow enough paced for newer people. HP of units was higher, armies were smaller, etc. Heroes were too significant in the game though, which turned a lot of games into "focus fire on the hero at all costs", ruining a lot of potential strategy. If they made heroes less significant (maybe 1 passive skill, 1 active skill, and no special armor type to reduce a lot of damage), the game would of been a bit better imo.

You know, while I loved WC3 when it launched, I HATED heroes mechanically for that exact reason - too much focus placed on them. And yet, playing SC2, I had way more fun in Heart of the Swarm than WoL because Kerrigan was pretty much a WC3-style hero. I think a lot of that had to do with countless hours of MOBA, so there's something to be said about that kind of design paradigm of one important unit 'catering to modern tastes' going forward.

 

[Hylian7]

Aren't MOBA's essentially the RTS genre reinvented for modern tastes?

Not at all. They use RTS-like controls, but are more focused on the individual or few unit micromanagement.

 

[Stiler]

I wish they'd try a real time tactical game like Myth or such.

Where it's focused on story/combat and not on base building or resource gathering.

Rather make the combat itself the focus, with a more in-depth system that uses the environment and different character types and makes them more important.

Where you have story missions that tell a story and you only have those people you start the mission with and have to make use of tactics to win and keep as many as you can alive.

 

[Sinistral]

I think it's fair to say that MOBA's have taken over the Micro aspect of RTS. The current Starcraft situation is also very Micro heavy.

With the advent of DX12/Vulkan, and knowing that there were technical limitations to the 200 unit resource limit in SC2 IIRC, it would be amazing to see a Macro oriented RTS. How to make that exciting to watch and play for esports is the tricky part.

I will admit, I do enjoy base building. /bias

But maybe they can capitalize on their recent foray into FPS, leverage their legacy on RTS, and utilize their known 'refining the formula' method and make a Natural Selection/Savage type game.

 

[SpiceMelange]

Not at all. They use RTS-like controls, but are more focused on the individual or few unit micromanagement.

It's almost like he did say reinvented or something.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

With the advent of DX12/Vulkan, and knowing that there were technical limitations to the 200 unit resource limit in SC2 IIRC, it would be amazing to see a Macro oriented RTS. How to make that exciting to watch and play for esports is the tricky part.

You might enjoy tackling this beast: http://store.steampowered.com/app/251060/

For me... I am good controlling two tanks and 4 rifleman squads on Coh2. I also hate mixing naval/air units into the formula, I feel that it adds needless complexity for my limited skillset.

I almost wish Blizzard would pull out a Battleforge with Warcraft. Battleforge was an incredible genre-blending game combining card deck (20) into the RTS gameplay. It is a perfect example of a less hardcore RTS game that still retains the RTS elements.

So you just want a MOBA.

Go check Battleforge out and see how it removes all those RTS complexities while maintaining none of the MOBA mechanics. You can see how it simplifies base building, removes workers and has around 6-7 units mid-game, ramps up to barely 10 units end game. Yet you still have many potential building, fight for resources/mines/position and start skirmishes pretty much 30 seconds into the game.

 

[Blargonaut]

There's no need for reinvention when we already had a ground-breaker in the past...

Make Warcraft 4 an MMORTS like Shattered Galaxy was:

Each server has a sectioned world map where multiple conflicts are taking place in real-time like Planetside, and players drop-in/drop-out (with exit penalty) of matches freely. Each player joins a faction, which all fight it out over ranked seasonal campaigns for territory control, and the story changes accordingly.

Each player controls a number of unit squadrons. There is a player hub where people can meet, chat, organize themselves and purchase/build, customize and arrange their unit squadrons.

Shattered Galaxy did all of this like ~16 years ago, loved that game

Base-building could be sandbox-style on each map section; eventually, the most resource-valuable map sections could have the equivalent of dug-in fortifications for each faction and a contested no-man's land, like trench warfare

 

[twobear]

blizzard already reinvented the RTS once (warcraft 3) and it was one of the most influential games of the past 20 years...i'm definitely interested to see what else they can do with the genre.

 

[Enosh]

Heroes of the Storm type RTS

Pick your Hero(Determines which units you get)
(Sorta like Civilization)
(But Real time)
(Like for Warcraft Heroes, you get Alliance or Horde based characters, and then depending on who you pick IE Arthas or Thrall you get specialized units)
(Kinda like Civ in that each counts as a different 'race', but instead of being turn based it's real time)

It could be cool and interesting.

total war arena is kinda that but you are limited to only 3 units

edit: thinking about it maybe not, don't think the hero joins the battle there

 

[Skellig Gra]

Hopefully they come in with some fresh ideas. RTS has always been one of my favorite genres. I don't really know where they go from here though.

 

[Ushay]

Modern WC4? Dear god I hope so.

 

[KKRT00]

I dont know how they can streamline RTS further, SC is already streamlined RTS.

I would love though a game that is similar to XCOM in combat, but in real-time and coop, some hybrid of Syndicate and XCOM with multiplayer support and open-ended campaign.
-----

With the advent of DX12/Vulkan, and knowing that there were technical limitations to the 200 unit resource limit in SC2 IIRC, it would be amazing to see a Macro oriented RTS. How to make that exciting to watch and play for esports is the tricky part.

Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander already exists.

 

[Mexen]

The one genre I am OK with being complex. The joy of conquering the system and mashing the keyboard with conditioned expertise is second to none.

 

[patapuf]

It's almost like he did say reinvented or something.

Controlling one unit is really not a strategy game. As much as people say MOBA's are RTS's they are really not.

Just like 3D platformers are not third person shooters even though both use similar control schemes.

 

[eyeball_kid]

It's a shame that Planetary Annihilation was botched; I can't imagine small studios would look at it and say "yeah we should try a RTS too". I don't know what sales were like, but they're practically giving it away in Steam sales.

I was never a big Blizzard RTS fan; I just want someone to make something as fun as Total Annihilation. But if a veteran RTS team has trouble pulling it off, who can? Seems like Minecraft would be a good playground to add some RTS-lite features. We need to get the young kids excited about this genre.

BTW, I always see those realistic-looking "Wargame" RTS games on sale in Steam sales, but I don't know anyone who has actually played one. Are they worthy of a purchase? Reviews I've seen don't make the AI very promising.

 

[Napalm_Frank]

Just go with the WC3 model. Hell, with MOBAs and everything the gameplay of WC3 is more modern than ever. Can't beat perfection.

 

[Yoshichan]

I would have sex with this game, but I'd certainly dump it after a few years just like my ex.

Edit: translation.

I would have strong passion for this game, but I'd certainly stop playing it after a few years (because of multiple different reasons) just like with SC2.

 

[Moonkid]

Dawn of War 3 will be our saviour, believe.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

It is time for Kohan III

 

[Mindlog]

It is time for Kohan III

Hell yeah it is.

I hate the idea that every RTS needs to reinvent the genre. I enjoy refinement and experimentation.
Let SC remain traditional.
Use WC if you want to do silly shit.
Use a new IP if you want to do some really silly shit.

/glares at DoW 2

 

[Lothars]

Aren't MOBA's essentially the RTS genre reinvented for modern tastes?

Nope, the people that love MOBA's do but I can't stand them and don't think they are very good even if they have a big audience. I want an actual RTS with bases and the such.

 

[Nzyme32]

I'm quite confident in Blizzard's ability, so I look forward to seeing what they do. Although I am sure it will be an interesting thing to balance, particularly with so many liking the complexity and variety that already exists, but also folks looking for some simplicity and accessibility unlike many mobas

 

[Nephrahim]

Sounds good. I enjoyed all of SC2 but even I must admit that by LotV it felt like a relic compared to newer games. I think they'll have to shake things up a bit if they're going to continue making RTSes, and not just chase the MOBA dream with HOTS.

 

[patapuf]

I'm quite confident in Blizzard's ability, so I look forward to seeing what they do. Although I am sure it will be an interesting thing to balance, particularly with so many liking the complexity and variety that already exists, but also folks looking for some simplicity and accessibility unlike many mobas

SP wise i don't think this is super difficult to do. C&C is already the super acessible RTS for example, and it's campaigns had wide casual appeal. Blizzards own stuff (and many other RTS's) does as well, of course, even if the mechanics are a bit more complex.

The issue comes with the MP. Having a game, nevermind a strategy game, be simple and deep without a high execution ceiling (aka "mikro") is hard problem to solve.

The 1v1 aspect makes it that much more punishing. Fighting games are short bursts, RTS's go quite a bit longer per round.

 

[ZehDon]

I hope Blizzard don't learn the wrong lessons from Starcraft II. I'd happily play 45 minute RTS missions if the story and presentation is good, and I can actually use, you know, strategy. The newest Homeworld entry is pretty special in this regard, and really shows how good a modern RTS game can be. Starcraft II's story was absolute garbage, and its melodramatic presentation makes sitting through its missions painful. The missions also almost all lacked any real strategy requirement, adopting an "all gimmicks, all the time" approach that was pretty boring.

 

[QuixoticNeutral]

I'm one of those people who thinks SC2 is far and away the best game Blizzard has ever made (mission design in particular has only been on the up and up in terms of variety and mechanical interest ever since WC3: TFT), but it's true that since WC3 there has been this divergence between StarCraft's identity revolving around huge economies and large, disposable armies, and WC3's identity revolving around tightly capped economies and small but beefy armies, with the common factor in the Blizzard brand being the radical factional asymmetry. Obviously the WC3 style has been MIA for a long time now and much of its appeal has been subsumed into the MOBA space, although I'd like to see it back in some form as I think there's still a space for it.

Moving towards smaller play sessions, be it in shorter campaign missions or multiplayer skirmishes, seems antithetical to expanding RTS to make it casual-friendly again, though. The bar for most players that discourages them from RTS is the speed. Novice or low-level players are the ones who always prefer to turtle up slowly, play it safe, and tinker with their bases without getting too stressed about resource depletion or the action elsewhere on the map. This is why tower defence (on the all-macro end, with MOBA at the all-micro end) took off the way it did back in the WC3 era: it was slow enough that it was practically turn-based, while leaving considerable room for mastery or creative teamwork if the TD map was well-designed.

One major space in RTS that Blizzard has never touched, and which could be ripe for an explosion given the right game, is the kind of real-time equivalent of 4X strategy that one sees in games like Sins of a Solar Empire or the space layer of Empire at War—a macro-centric game that is about economic decisions and build/tech pathways, but at a considerably accelerated pace (think of how Rise of Nations felt when it first launched, as a Stone-Age-to-nukes experience of territorial control that was like condensing Civilization into an hour). That is territory open for the taking.

 

[vocab]

Sprinkle some of the jay wilson magic on starcraft and you got a game that belongs in the garbage.

Id be interested in their take of the casualization of RTS. COH can be pretty complex, and it's not fairly heavy with base building. Maybe some automation of base building while you focus on units could be interesting as well.

 

[magwizsorc]

I honestly would really like to see a new take on the RTS. I think larger maps, weather effects, and the environment playing a larger role in strategy would be really big steps forward. Things like one area having electrical storms so choosing between risking your big units or only using smaller ones.

 

[lazygecko]

I honestly would really like to see a new take on the RTS. I think larger maps, weather effects, and the environment playing a larger role in strategy would be really big steps forward. Things like one area having electrical storms so choosing between risking your big units or only using smaller ones.

You've pretty much described Tiberian Sun to a T there.

 

[Stevey]

It's also a game that's moved a grand total of 61,000 copies.

Grey Goo is at ~150,000 though that might be slightly inflated due to the free weekend.

Blizzard's sales bar is comparatively very, very high. Diablo 3 has moved over 30 million units between the base game and expansion pack.

I'm not following this post.
Do you mean SCII instead of Diablo III?
Why are you comparing RTS to ARPG?

 

[patapuf]

I'm not following this post.
Do you mean SCII instead of Diablo III?
Why are you comparing RTS to ARPG?

He wants to say that this is the sale targets of Blizzard.

When blizzards say they want to make another RTS, they want it to sell millions. The classical RTS games mentioned (and i looove kharak) don't do that.

 

[Hylian7]

It's almost like he did say reinvented or something.

They still are not RTS's, not a "re-invented" RTS.

 

[Rizific]

Aren't MOBA's essentially the RTS genre reinvented for modern tastes?

uhh what? no. moba's are a completely different genre. i love me some good ol' RTS. give me warcraft 4 blizz please oh please.

 

[Stevey]

He wants to say that this is the sale targets of Blizzard.

When blizzards say they want to make another RTS, they want it to sell millions. The classical RTS games mentioned (and i looove kharak) don't do that.

Right, got it.

 

[Steel]

Oh god... Don't reinvent the wheel. That was the biggest problem with Starcraft 2's online.

 

[Ferrio]

Competitive RTS games are primarily 1v1.

So we need a 1v1 Moba, wait why hasn't that happened yet?

 

[Dreavus]

So we need a 1v1 Moba, wait why hasn't that happened yet?

Hmm, I'm not sure how popular that would be. A big part of MOBAs is the team composition angle, with different roles and overall strategies. You lose that with a 1v1. It would have to be completely it's own game and throw out many things that are a currently part of MOBAs. It's doable but at that point it morphs into some kind of fighting game.

 

[Enter the Dragon Punch]

So we need a 1v1 Moba, wait why hasn't that happened yet?

Hmm, I'm not sure how popular that would be. A big part of MOBAs is the team composition angle, with different roles and overall strategies. You lose that with a 1v1. It would have to be completely it's own game and throw out many things that are a currently part of MOBAs. It's doable but at that point it morphs into some kind of fighting game.

not just that: a lot of the moba community will shy away from a 1v1 situation. can't blame your teammates when you fail

 

[Isomac]

Half Minute RTS hero. I would probably try it out.

 

[patapuf]

So we need a 1v1 Moba, wait why hasn't that happened yet?

a 1v1 Moba would be closer to a fighting game than an RTS

 

[Dahbomb]

I would enjoy a Starcraft that works more like Company of Heroes/Dawn of War.

More based on unit micro and objective battles than base building. And the micro isn't super speed heavy but rather about making proper decisions.

 

[Syf]

I would enjoy a Starcraft that works more like Company of Heroes/Dawn of War.

More based on unit micro and objective battles than base building. And the micro isn't super speed heavy but rather about making proper decisions.

If anything I'd want it done with a new IP or possibly Warcraft because that's already more focused on hero units. Starcraft without macro play isn't Starcraft, and I'd hate to see them do that to the IP.

 

[Harken Raiser]

I'm one of those people who thinks SC2 is far and away the best game Blizzard has ever made (mission design in particular has only been on the up and up in terms of variety and mechanical interest ever since WC3: TFT), but it's true that since WC3 there has been this divergence between StarCraft's identity revolving around huge economies and large, disposable armies, and WC3's identity revolving around tightly capped economies and small but beefy armies, with the common factor in the Blizzard brand being the radical factional asymmetry. Obviously the WC3 style has been MIA for a long time now and much of its appeal has been subsumed into the MOBA space, although I'd like to see it back in some form as I think there's still a space for it.

Moving towards smaller play sessions, be it in shorter campaign missions or multiplayer skirmishes, seems antithetical to expanding RTS to make it casual-friendly again, though. The bar for most players that discourages them from RTS is the speed. Novice or low-level players are the ones who always prefer to turtle up slowly, play it safe, and tinker with their bases without getting too stressed about resource depletion or the action elsewhere on the map. This is why tower defence (on the all-macro end, with MOBA at the all-micro end) took off the way it did back in the WC3 era: it was slow enough that it was practically turn-based, while leaving considerable room for mastery or creative teamwork if the TD map was well-designed.

One major space in RTS that Blizzard has never touched, and which could be ripe for an explosion given the right game, is the kind of real-time equivalent of 4X strategy that one sees in games like Sins of a Solar Empire or the space layer of Empire at War—a macro-centric game that is about economic decisions and build/tech pathways, but at a considerably accelerated pace (think of how Rise of Nations felt when it first launched, as a Stone-Age-to-nukes experience of territorial control that was like condensing Civilization into an hour). That is territory open for the taking.

This makes me want someone to develop an RTS that flips between a macro-only phase and a micro-only phase. Maybe there could be a day/night cycle, where you gather resources and build structures during the day, and you purely engage in combat at night. Is there any game out there that does that already?

 

[Holundrian]

Sad to say that it probably won't speak to me. The Blizzard that made games I loved has been gone since burning crusade.


After having several problems with D3, SC2, SC2 Hots, Hearthstone, Lichking and Heroes(one of the problems being so damn slow in responding to community needs) I have a hard time imagining that whatever they're brewing up will be something I want to play.

I have higher hopes for project Atlas and my hopes aren't even that high.

 

[Purple Cheeto]

So first they tried to set RTS back with SC2 and now they want to go forward? Watch them just clone SupCom and call it a day.

 

[CrazedProfessional]

If they ditch base building and clone Airmech. Rip rts

 

[patapuf]

This makes me want someone to develop an RTS that flips between a macro-only phase and a micro-only phase. Maybe there could be a day/night cycle, where you gather resources and build structures during the day, and you purely engage in combat at night. Is there any game out there that does that already?

Total war? Granted, the Makro layer is turn based.

 

[Bolivar687]

Personally I feel a lot of fan favorite developers outthink themselves when it comes to reinventing franchises for modern sensibilities. I believe they'd be better served preserving what made those games special in the first place with a fresh coat of paint and further refining the core mechanics.

That's why I hold Path of Exile as a far better sequel to Diablo II than what Blizzard was able to accomplish and wish we could have seen similar efforts with Final Fantasy and Warcraft.

 

[Orayn]

If they ditch base building and clone Airmech. Rip rts

Airmech is a throwback to Herzog Zwei, a game that actually came out several years before the modern RTS (Warcraft, CnC, etc.) was codified. It wouldn't be "RIP RTS," it would be like a rock musician going back to the genre's roots in blues.