Modern vs Older RTS Discuss

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

 

[alre]

3 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

isn't this like the third time you share this video already? great one btw, but yet... 

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 hours ago, alre said:

isn't this like the third time you share this video already? great one btw, but yet... 

I think YouTube always recommends it and I never watch it.

Until last night. I haven't been around here much this year, I don't remember. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

I don't remember if I already posted this.

Players want a campaign.

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I don't remember if I already posted this.

Players want a campaign.

I've always thought that 0 A D should try gameplay from other genres to differentiate itself from an existing product.

There are many helpful comments in this video. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Another RTS analysis video, this time RoN.

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

I'm going to post some non-RTS game development videos that are useful for this cause.

I've noticed that games before were made to entertain even if they weren't balanced.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

20 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I'm going to post some non-RTS game development videos that are useful for this cause.

I've noticed that games before were made to entertain even if they weren't balanced.

 

The reason why AoE 4 is quite Starcraft is because of its pro community.

And turning an RTS into an E-sport is a mistake.

Casuals are what make up the audience for these games.

Edited December 6 by Lion.Kanzen

[alre]

15 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

The reason why AoE 4 is quite Starcraft is because of its pro community.

And turning an RTS into an E-sport is a mistake.

Casuals are what make up the audience for these games.

tell this to @chrstgtr if you want to piss him out.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, alre said:

tell this to @chrstgtr if you want to piss him out.

I could do it. I gain nothing by doing it.

 

Sometimes we sacrifice fun for utopian balance. The only way to balance the game the way they want is for all factions to be the same.

I even read about removing units or adding units  because it was unfair. Some have archers and others don't.

 

We should unbalance and rebalance the game with every update.

[Lion.Kanzen]

My original quest was why most of this game was so boring compared to the ones from previous decades, I have a video in Spanish.

I have not found that same thought in English.

I'm trying to understand what makes a game fun.

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

My original quest was why most of this game was so boring compared to the ones from previous decades, I have a video in Spanish.

I have not found that same thought in English.

I'm trying to understand what makes a game fun.

Why games  actual aren't the same as before?

 

Edited December 6 by Lion.Kanzen

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Those are bad takes, specifically the point on avoiding the consultation of the best players when balancing and designing features. A game can be highly competitive and very casual.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Those are bad takes, specifically the point on avoiding the consultation of the best players when balancing and designing features. A game can be highly competitive and very casual.

The problem is finding the balance, not scaring new players, nor being broken, in fact in the videos I saw the design leader is always an expert at playing.

[Lion.Kanzen]

What they want to know lately is what makes a game entertaining.

 

For example, we saw that casual should not be neglected.

In the Spanish video it gives you ideas, which if you're comparing it with AOE II you'll understand, which is why the game isn't overly realistic.

The game should be fun to do. Keep the fun factor.

It should not be taken too seriously or resemble real life.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Another topic to ponder. Does 0AD generate this sensation?

Edited December 7 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

In case I've already posted this...sorry.

It's from 6 years ago and I'm reading the comments:

 

Then I found good answers in the comments section.

I identify with answers like: "I play to conquer the entire map."

A cooperative mode should also be implemented, it is very popular.

 

There is a very interesting comment, which says that when you don't have time to practice, because you are aging and becoming an adult (That happens to me) You stop being that good and competitive player, because you "sucks" playing...So it becomes frustrating.

Another comment that I liked is that the ways to play in multiplayer are always the same to win.(I imagine that situations change but there are always pre-defined situations).

[That's why some people always complain about new mechanics.]

While the single player gives them an excuse to play without measuring himself against anyone.

[Atrik]

It's hard for me not to bite to this thread and ask:
Why so much people pretend that the priority is to keep a very steep learning curve of mechanical skills (arguably the less interesting part of Real Time STRATEGY)? Every time I post about increasing playability of micro like sniping, training.. someone comes up with an argumentation that makes it look like it's something great to have minimal features to make it the hardest as possible to achieve any basic thing... My opinion is that, more focus on mechanical skills means less emphasis on strategy, teamwork etc.

[Grautvornix]

And don't forget that some casual SP enjoy building up a Civ on a beautiful map and have only occasional conflicts until the final showdown. It is certainly not competitive but another way to have fun. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 hours ago, Grautvornix said:

And don't forget that some casual SP enjoy building up a Civ on a beautiful map and have only occasional conflicts until the final showdown. It is certainly not competitive but another way to have fun. 

It corresponds to 2 types of video game psychology.

One, multiplayer is a game where communication and community work as a podium where you can show off in front of others.

It becomes a social subculture, a social network where you prove you are the best.

The other one, on the other hand, is more of a experiment you roleplay as a political leader without consequences.Making decisions about soldiers and slaves.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

11 hours ago, Atrik said:

It's hard for me not to bite to this thread and ask:
Why so much people pretend that the priority is to keep a very steep learning curve of mechanical skills (arguably the less interesting part of Real Time STRATEGY)? Every time I post about increasing playability of micro like sniping, training.. someone comes up with an argumentation that makes it look like it's something great to have minimal features to make it the hardest as possible to achieve any basic thing... My opinion is that, more focus on mechanical skills means less emphasis on strategy, teamwork etc.

It is a combination of attitudes and aptitudes.

Not everyone wants the frenzy of clicks and APM. But it is part of the idea of being 1 in a ranking.

This speed thing will depend on the pace of th game itself.

 I like the slow pace of seeing how I build my base step by step and then attack. 

It's like a mix of a turtle and an economic boom.

But the formula to win in competitive is only one and whoever is faster in that technique wins.

In fact, that is not strategy, it is tactics.

The strategy is the macro plan and the tactic is micromanagement.

For most players this micronanagment is very stressful.Just look at Yekaterine's mod, it's made to make those fights unrealistic, but effective. You become one with the machine, I mean it's all mechanical skill as you say.

[Atrik]

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Just look at Yekaterine's mod, it's made to make those fights unrealistic, but effective. You become one with the machine, I mean it's all mechanical skill as you say.

This mod is pure personal preference, in fact all games have graphical settings, "skins" and that kind of stuff that you can theorize they give an "advantage". Ofc you can maybe place a woodcutter a tiny bit better/faster with theses trees models, but it's less impacting then having a fly in your room while playing => you can consider it negligible, epsilon. If you prefer playing with theses settings i would just say good for you... lol. I personally prefer realism and I'm sure I play better with high graphics then low because it's my personal preference.

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

But the formula to win in competitive is only one and whoever is faster in that technique wins.

In fact, that is not strategy, it is tactics.

Agree that 99% is tactics in competitive gameplay. Even players often pretend to have a 'plan' prior to ANY scouting. This is maybe in part because of how some approach the game with predefined build orders, timings to do such or such etc...

[real_tabasco_sauce]

the amount of tasks you are responsible for is not in any way at the expense of strategy. It just means you have to decide where you will spend your effort.

36 minutes ago, Atrik said:

Even players often pretend to have a 'plan' prior to ANY scouting.

yes, and? If its a hunt map, maybe a cav rush is good. Low wood? get slingers and mercs maybe. 

Though I would like to make scouting more impactful.

Ideas on increasing strategies:

• Hide territory line updates in FOW, hide resource collection
• development of unique units
• unit specific technologies.
• New economic unit: Laborer
• try to embellish unit roles and counters (heavilty limited by citizen soldier framework)
  • maybe champs can be more involved with this?

Edited December 7 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Lion.Kanzen]

31 minutes ago, Atrik said:

This mod is pure personal preference, in fact all games have graphical settings, "skins" and that kind of stuff that you can theorize they give an "advantage". Ofc you can maybe place a woodcutter a tiny bit better/faster with theses trees models, but it's less impacting then having a fly in your room while playing => you can consider it negligible, epsilon. If you prefer playing with theses settings i would just say good for you... lol. I personally prefer realism and I'm sure I play better with high graphics then low because it's my personal preference.

As I understand it, Yekaterina used that mod for several things and one of them was to optimize tactics and game speed.

[Lion.Kanzen]

31 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

the amount of tasks you are responsible for is not in any way at the expense of strategy. It just means you have to decide where you will spend your effort.

yes, and? If its a hunt map, maybe a cav rush is good. Low wood? get slingers and mercs maybe. 

Though I would like to make scouting more impactful.

Ideas on increasing strategies:

• development of unique units
• unit specific technologies.
• New economic unit: Laborer
• try to embellish unit roles and counters (heavilty limited by citizen soldier framework)
  • maybe champs can be more involved with this?

More technologies are undoubtedly needed so that the strategy is more defined, that is, more evident.

Champion needs to be more unique. Even if it is from the same class.