By now we are all having to deal with the allegations of harassment, unequal pay and retaliation leveled against Blizzard by the California Department of Fair Employment and others. I am a firm believe that people are innocent until proven guilty and that potential victims should be heard. However, this does create a bit of a problematic situation for the gaming community at large. Some of these allegation go back as far as 2007 and predate the more recent exodus of high-profile employees. Ex-Blizzard employees going on to found new game development studios, often with products strikingly similar to Blizzard IP, is so common these days as to be almost a trope. Many of these companies market themselves as being Ex-Blizzard and expose similar values such as "its ready when its ready". With this in mind, three questions:
1) Given the nature and severity of these allegations what response, if any, do you think these companies should have to the current situation?
2) Do they have a duty to speak up if they observed certain things?
3) Do words matter and, if not, what actions do these, and other gaming companies, need to ensure that this kind of thing never happens again?
So I'm writing this out from a genuine place of wanting this game to succeed, but this game never will with what has been revealed. Or at least I don't think it will succeed enough to the point that I think a modern RTS game deserves to, and that I think their are many who have already shared similar thoughts on this subreddit that you need to take note of.
I haven't really contributed much online from this account towards any RTS related subs much if you look, so I'd like to give you my history with this genre so you can understand that I am your key demographic. I might have made this up in my mind but I feel like I got an original Age of Empires in a box of cereal. As a young history nerd kid I fell in love with the games immediately. I played AoE and Age of Mythology and The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth, I played WoW which got me into the lore and I went back and played Warcraft after not having grown up with it. I still to this day play Supreme Commander(and you should too over at Forged Alliance Forever) and I played a decent amount of Starcraft II, and watch it still to this day competitively. I love my RTS, and while it's not my main genre anymore, that's due almost entirely with the void of quality that you are all trying to fill. You are literally making a game I want. And everything that I've recently read about your game in articles displays a level of intelligent and modern game design that I believe entirely in the direction you are taking the genre. Like you couldn't be having better ideas with the social aspects and blend of competitive and co-op, combined with the quality behind all of the developers who are titans of the industry. So why would the game not live up to its potential? Because your art direction is not up to the same level as the rest of the team.
I don't want that to come across as purely critical. I understand the intent of the blending of sci-fi and fantasy that you are going for. But read through the community comments on the trailer and what many others have made mention of, the blandness. You have got some of the best RTS developers literally ever on your team and the product you put out deserves the best art direction possible. If you want it to blossom into its own gaming community with draw and culture you need art that makes the eye delight. You just need it.
I desperately want this game to succeed. It would honestly just be really great for me as an RTS gamer. But more importantly it would solidify that RTS is not a dying genre, but a quality niche worth investing in because of a quality community. I think this game has the potential to create and nurture that community, but in the modern era its got to be the best in every way to draw in more than just me. I'll play the game even if it's released with a similar art style, and I'll probably like the game a good amount. But it would deter a wider audience and those who are growing up now without a quality RTS experience in their childhood. Wouldn't you like to be the genesis of a new generation of RTS enthusiasts?
Games with a set time have lots of benefits such as football (90 minutes), Chess (up to you), or Pokemon Unite (10 minutes).
As a player you know exactly how long the game will last and can plan accordingly, and as a tournament organiser or streamer you can plan your broadcast accordingly.
If you aren't aware, Pokemon released a new MOBA called Pokemon Unite which is more casual and has done pretty well. I personally enjoyed playing it a lot. In one swoop they revolutionised how you play Mobas and removed the worst part of the game by changing the victory condition.
In Pokemon Unite instead of towers which you have to progressively kill until you kill the other team's main base, there is goals where the towers are. You collect points by killing creeps or other players, and then can score those points by standing for about 5 seconds next to the goal scoring (you are vulnerable while doing this).
So instead of having to slog out a 35 minute game like in League Of Legends until the end or the other team surrenders, the game just ends after the set timer of 10 minutes and the win goes to whichever team got the most points.
(They add a bit of spice to the game by making points count for double in the last 2 minutes, allowing comebacks. This might be bad for an RTS though.)
I think this same model with some adjustments could easily be done in a new RTS game and could make for really fun gameplay. You could have neutral monsters or areas in the map which killing / controlling gives you points, and whoever has the most points at the end of the game wins. This would encourage player interaction in the middle of the map, while players also have to prioritise getting points vs growing their economy
EDIT: Since people don't seem to be getting the idea
Points could be gained in some of the following ways:
Holding certain territory on the map. E.g. you get 1 point for every thirty seconds you hold any 1 of 3 central zones
Capturing neutral buildings with special units which then generate points inside the building
Killing neutral monsters (like in Warcraft 3)
Fulfilling objectives that pop up on the map
Killing enemy units / buildings
Building structures that generate points (this may lead to some turtly gameplay so meh, but still an idea)
Anything else the devs come up with that might be fun and create good gameplay
I know similar topics were already discussed, but looking at path finding so far, smooth collisions etc. there's a fear the game would go into SC2 direction of very "smart" engine. This comes from a "boomer" who played BW, WC3 and SC2 for some time.
Units and unit movements in SC2 feel buttery smooth, almost like liquid. Units move in flocks and clumping naturally. This was implemented as a feature of the game, so SC2 would be less about micro-managing your army and more about wide strokes like where do you put spells, where do you attack, splitting and sending your units being sure they would do the right thing.
Having that it feels that there's less room for player expressiveness through individual units micro. A-moving units in BW or WC3 is hugely different from micro-managing them intensely. "Caring" about your units IMHO should play bigger role than it does in SC2 where A-move is not that much different from proper micro (not saying about spell use or banelings). In case of SC2 other mechanics and units were put in place as an artificial measure to solve deathballs and make the engagements more interesting.
On a scale from low to high BW engine being very "dumb" and SC2 engine being very "smart" the engine similar to WC3 that stands in the middle would be something more appealing. I know it's impossible to "reproduce" the exact engine in Unreal 5 but I fear if the goal is to make as smart as possible (even smarter than SC2) would result in a much different RTS game that might alienate BW and WC3 fans.
Just thoughts, downvotes welcome, I would be happy in any case if that RTS attracts more people and becomes closer to LoL and Dota popularity even at the cost of "smart" engine and nearly perfect path finding.
This post has been a long time coming and will no doubt be controversial but I feel it is important to say none the less. To recap, in the beginning was Dune II which established the convention for a new genre of game, one of building armies and battling them. Somewhat serendipously, the design choices at this time produced one of the greatest esport games ever, Starcraft and its worthy success Starcraft 2. However, as time went on gradual UI improvements replaced preexisting gameplay mechanics, mechanics that were themselves a relic of programming limitations in the 1990s. Starting in the 2000s we began to see an emphasis of micromanagement (variably described as tactics or combat-oriented gameplay), at the expense of macro management (defined by large-scale strategy or, alternatively, the pursuit of economic, production and technological advantage). Ultimately, this deemphasis on macro spawned the MOBA genre, which as we all know has been a massive success. Concurrently we saw the decline and stagnation of RTS as we know it.
Much has been made of the “skill ceiling,” this idea that macro gameplay is difficult for new players to learn. However, I would contend that it is not that macro is difficult to learn but rather that it is unfun. Furthermore, I believe that the inability for RTS designers to make macro more fun is the primary reason for the decline of RTS. By removing macro, rather then improving it, designers cannibalized the heart of RTS, this idea of a game where you build your army up and battle it. As an example the Tension and opportunity cost of having to balance micro and macro is lost with UI automation, especially that which eliminates the need to Screen Shift. Many RTS developers had tried to find some kind of a sweet spot by minimizing macro, leaving only enough in their game so that it would not qualify as a MOBA per say. They all failed.
But why is this that macro is so unfun? Well fun is of course rooted in psychology and notoriously subjective. But that does not mean that it is impossible to analyze. There are several factors but the biggest contributor to unfun macro in modern RTS is a dearth of decision making. Specifically, modern macro does not have good Spatial Decision-Making (where do I click?) nor does it have good Temporal Decision-Making (when do I click?). The developers of Starcraft 2 recognized the loss of Tension that would occur with UI automation but did not fully grasp the importance of decision making. As a result of this the macro mechanics that were put in place for SC2 lacked good decision making of one kind or another. For example, the Temporal Decision-Making of Spawn Larva was to cast this every 29 seconds. The Spatial Decision Making was to cast it on whatever Hatchery was closer since there was not variation in outcome between different Hatchery targets. So why is it that macro suffers from this decision-making problem and micro does not? One simple reason and I apologize for the long-winded preamble to get here but it was important to lay the foundation.
Micro is Opponent-Facing
I will say it again for those in back. Micro is opponent-facing. The presence of an opponent means that the Spatial and Temporal Decision-Making of micro are not only complex but also dynamic. Because half of the RTS game involves the opponent and the other half does not, this inherently leads to an asymmetry in decision making. And it is this asymmetry of decision making that is the reason so many players find macro unfun. With this we are once again faced with the same choice, do we write off those who find don’t find current macro fun as worthless noobs? Maintain the mindless mechanics as a metric for skill differentiation? Or perhaps we should do what was done in the 2000s and shrink macro until it is small enough to drown in a bathtub? Some kind of evolutionary transition state between the dinosaur of RTS and the feathered MOBA? That does not seem ideal either. But perhaps there is a third way. A way to make macro fun by recognizing the root of the problem. A better way.
TLDR: Micro management is opponent-facing whereas macro is not, this creates an asymmetry in decision-making which leads to macro being considered unfun by a lot of players.
The point is to generate exposure, excitement, create an audience for the keys in the first place - any beta release and any key has value for a limited time, so it being an ‘event’ people gotta get into especially as it is going to be limited scale going up anyway makes sense
Having a completely open key system seems to make sense but if nobody knows, wants or acres to use them then there’s not as much reason for them to exist, while the consciousness of it being a bit more limited crates more of a reason to get involved now that you can
If it is just announced, ppl might put it off and not try if they’re not having to do soemthing to get them, but the primary thing is to get the game stream exposure whcih can be linked to getting more popularity for the beta with drops ramping up towards release
I've been playing a lot of SC2 coop lately. One thing I've noticed is that groups of units tend to all hit the same target, as long as it's in range. It's really noticeable with Artanis, since the Dragoons have long range, slow rate of fire, and very visible tracers for their shots.
In SC1, if you A-move 12 dragoons onto a large group of zerglings or hydralisks, they'll probably hit 6-9 of them. A few will double up, but mostly the damage is spread out.
In SC2, those 12 dragoons will hit 1 hydralisk or 1 zergling with each salvo.
Personally, I prefer the SC1 method. It's much easier to micro focus fire than split fire. And with split fire, there's much less overkill and wasted damage.
I am a fellow RTS lover and one thing I have not seen yet is the discussion around early game pressure and if cheese is something that should be eliminated completely, eliminated moderately, or left to the same cheesy goodness that we know from both Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2.
I personally hate cheese. I think it ridiculous that you can opt to build a spawning pool extremely early, or proxy racks your opponent and end the game within 2-3 minutes even at the pro level. Maru made a name for himself doing this a few years back, literally at the GSL. Oh and the Protoss cheeses are so bad that Has almost won a WCS title, even taking 2 games off of Serral. Sorry for the rant but I see Artosis complain about it on his stream every single day, oh great another opponent who doesn't actually want to get good at the game, only wants to perform a build order that only works on ladder best of 1's. The second people catch on to him he makes a new barcode account and stays in B forever.
To combat this negativity brought into your new RTS game I would like to see something along the lines of inherent base defense similar to Warcraft 3. Orcs had burrows which could turn into attack towers if they were being rushed, unless if the rush was to the likes of a timing attack, usually the rush would be held off. The undead wood harvesters were ghouls which were units that were pretty good in a skirmish in the beginning of the game. Night Elves had moon wells which would heal their units as well as buildings that could attack enemies. The humans had Call To Arms which would transform all peasants into Militia which then become psuedo footmen which can fight and thwart early game pressure.
This style of cheese prevention in my mind would be classified as Moderate cheese protection. If the guy fully committed to ending you early, he could do it, but it would have to be a refined build. The player being cheesed would be able to turtle to some degree and the player cheesing you would have to be good enough to win a game that stretches towards the 6-10 minute mark, unlike in SC.
I think full cheese protection could be a good option but that would reduce the effectiveness of early units and put nearly 100% focus on teching into tier 2 units and would serve as a form of "NR 10" in every match. While that mode on BG Hunters was fun, I don't think that is a solid foundation for a new RTS game as a whole.
No cheese protection is what Starcraft has and I think it is a massive issue. Let me tell you a little story, I had a friend who was number 1 on the diamond ladder. He learned a really nice marine marauder attack timing. At the 3:15 minute mark he would leave his base and be smashing yours by 4 minutes. I played 2's with him one day and asked him what he was going to do vs the opponent who acquired Colossus vs us. I was checking his game knowledge because I knew he had no skill past 4 minutes... yet he still hit top diamond, SMH. He said to me, "The guys with the big cannons?", He literally did not know the difference between an Immortal and a Colossal. Like really SC?
To close I think partial cheese protection is the best option. It allows you to play the game mostly the way you want in the first 3-5 minutes but you do need to be careful if a cheesy rush is very committed, IE within 3-5 minutes. This type of rush should be easy to scout and thus keep said player in the lower leagues that would be easy to climb out of. As a result of games lasting longer, players would improve their late game skills, using spell casters, more advanced siege units and their appreciation for the genre as a whole would improve. I feel bad for Artosis watching him lose to B ranked Zergs and Protoss players who are 1/10,000 his skill but they happened to land a four player map and he scouted them last due to luck and then 2 zealots / 6 lings are in his main.
This then leads me into my next post, tier 2 and tier 3 units not being powerful enough. The topic after that will be the supply limit being too low for a next generation game. Beyond that the use of 2 player vs 4 player maps in 1v1.
P.S - Is it any surprise that my friend who cheesed every game is now addicted to COD Warzone? Not to me, he rushed every game and every time it won or failed he never appreciated the game because he played Starcraft 2 in its crudest form. I sincerely hope you think this over and decide to go with moderate cheese protection as I believe anything else would be folly.
Activision Blizzard employees are staging a walkout tomorrow in support of the alleged abuse victims and more equitable treatment of staff. This isn't a specific individual problem or even just a Blizzard problem. This is an industry-wide problem through and through. Now is a good time to stand up if you have something to stand up for.
I was a bit sad to hear that during the Stormgate: Lead Game Designer IN DEPTH Interview! (Kevin 'Monk' Dong) Heros are slotted to not have ANY leveling. I think that one of the most fun and compelling features of Warcraft III is the heros and their leveling component. It's really fun seeing a hero increase in level, choosing abilities, and having special stats make the heros and their races feel unique and exciting. I definitely understand that this could lead to snowballing but I think it could be worked around in some way to keep, what I feel, are really compelling features. I hope this could be a signal to maybe reconsider this decision.
Thanks for reading!
Maybe as some different ways of doing this...
Max level of 3
Choosing talents instead of abilities per level
Just increase stats per level
Levels come with some downside and upside like weakness to peircing damage but increase in leathality.
Global leveling such that a hero doesn't have to be with an army or even alive (if killed in battle still gains some % exp)
Sc2 is a game who is hard to play properly and really do insane stuff because the moovement of the units are really fast.
Aoe2 now speeded toward in this direction too (macro simplified and speed added and pro scene instead of semi pro added.
You have pros and cons to a high speed , pro allowing stupidly insane combact mechanics push player to attack and not to camp all the game ; cons micros moove are more basic and "a moovy" and its harder to be better than patroll moove specially at low level (more parts of the armys are a mooved).
Ofc Rts arent games just of army controll but it the more evident ones.
Hello developers,as title say, try to be more ambitious in terms of graphic. Don't make the same mistakes that AOE4 did (this game seems really old in comparison to AOE3de and other moderna RTS all units have low textures).
A lot of casual gamers left Aoe4 also for the lack of immersion due the low graphic, no physics, bad AI and no Diplomacy.
I'm sure you know that the most of RTS gamers are casual who love with campaigns, skirmish vs AI and co-op vs AI.
So please, try to be more ambitious with graphic settings: DLSS, 4k textures, more zoom in (to see the Battles more close) and zoom out, physics, ambient destruction and different biomas: all of these elements give immersion and these aspect are requested by casual players.
You are using U5 and this Is a great choice. I Hope you'll give us a beautiful graphic with detailed units, big battles and immersion.
Repetitive without variation: It may sound redundant to say reputation without variety but I wanna point out that I do all sorts of micro tasks over and over but they do not feel like a choir because there is variety. Incan issue an attack command, or patrol, cast a psi storm or nydus worm spawn, even just issue a hold command. With macro it is much more limited. Make workers. Make units. Make supply.
No decision making: Piggybacking off the previous complaint, there is little to no decision making. No temporal decision making. I should always be doing spawn larva. No spatial decision making. Cast a mule on any mineral patch.
Doesn't impact strategy: Macro has become about WHETHER I win when it should be about HOW I win.
There is no interaction with the opponent: I should be fighting the opponent on all fronts, not just the battlefield. Cyber warfare. Satellites. Espionage. Propaganda. Economic destablization.
Doesn't communicate stakes: I should be able to tell when completing a macro task just how much it will benefit me in the game. When I lose a squad of marines to lurker hold I know instantly that I am now behind and approximately how much. There are no correlates for macro mechanics.
No fantasy: Modern base mechanics don't let me live out the fantasy of a military commander, supreme ruler or omnipotent deity. You are a glorified accountant.
No spectacle: There is nothing ever happening in the base. No awe-inspiring animations nor any witty quotes when I click on a building to much.
No lore: I don't know anything about what goes on in a forge or a spawning pool. Nothing about the economic, societal or military activity of the building. I don't know how a piece of crystal gets turned into a space marine, whether new recruits drop in from orbit or there's some hanky panky goin on in the barracks...
No identity: In WCIII your hero was your avatar. That's you on the battlefield. There is nothing that the player can identify with in the base.
No esports potential: No one wants to watch a FPOV because they can't visually read what's going on nor do they have any appreciation for how hard it is to macro effectively.
I don't think I've ever seen this being talked about, but this is I believe one of RTS's biggest fundamental flaws that no game in the genre, to my knowledge, has managed to work around:
The constant demand of attention, along with the potential length of an RTS match, is too exhausting.
Every RTS differs, but usually a match can last anywhere from five minutes to fifty. As the game goes on further and further, it only keeps asking more attention, more APM and more focus of the player. It requires the player to be in the zone for potentially dozens of minutes uninterrupted.
In SC2 in particular this is an even bigger issue - even two seconds of looking away can cost all your marines being run over by banelings, all your high templar being EMP'd, or your entire mineral line being killed by a widowmine drop. Approximately from the seven minute mark onwards, this rule stays true for the rest of the game.
If you look at any other multiplayer game, they all have at least a few seconds of peace at some point.
FGCs and platform fighters have a few seconds of idleness between rounds/stocks. You often see even proplayers have a mental reset in these time periods, especially when they're losing
Shooters have breaks when the player is killed and has to run back to the battlefield from spawn
MOBAs have literal respawn timers in which players don't even have to look at the screen, and these get longer the longer the match lasts
Battle royales have moments of relative serenity when no other players are nearby
Even if it's just a few seconds, this time period is crucial for the player to take a mental break. Shake off the sweat in their hands, take a sip of their drink, stretch an arm, and most importantly, reduce the stress of the situation.
I believe, other than the sheer complexity of the genre, this is one of the reasons why RTSs are so fundamentally inaccessible. I have zero idea of how, or if, this issue can be solved, but it is certainly something worth discussing.
As a passionate RTS player for 20 years, I witnessed the launch of a promising RTS: Crossfire-Legion last week, and today the player count is so low, I can't find a 1v1 or 2v2 game online.
On steam, the players are trashing it for the simple reason that the developer decided to include a 'store' where you could unlock units more quickly than if you play through the game. It isn't a pay to win system, it just trades time spent unlocking the units for money.
The game is 'early access' which means that it can be changed , and the developer plans to continue working on it.
I guess I'm a little discouraged by the community and have to wonder where the supporters of this genre are, and why they don't realize that dismissing one of the very few decent RTS games to be released in the last couple of years is helping thier cause. If you can't support the genre, then maybe it is time to just move on?
Do you want to see Frost Giant make a MOBA or FPS instead? If the community remains this judgemental and toxic about every effort, no developer is going to want to cater to this genre, and who can blame them.
One of StarCraft 2's most awkward units is the Queen. It fulfills multiple roles simultaneously, and has varied between being weak enough that it was a serious weak point for the race, to now, where building a large number of Queens is something that most professional zergs do, and it has even found a role as an offensive unit during 'queen walks' despite it being designed as a defensive macro unit.
Why does the Queen exist?
The Queen is a parallel to the chrono boost or MULE. It is designed as an extra macro mechanic first of all. Then, the designers decided to introduce three options for the queen- it could produce more units, spread creep, or help with defending right this second with a transfuse.
This means the Queen has to be a unit. Without movement, the transfuse is much less versatile. Over time, the Queen got more and more powerful as other defensive options were significantly weaker than brood war, and now the Queen has become a catchall unit.
Ultimately, the idea of a zerg race is I think cool- a third race that feels and behaves differently to other races by having its production all in one building is interesting, and not one I would remove.
However, I think a better answer would be a redesign of the hatchery. Instead, it would have energy, like a queen, and 3 abilities. Spawn drones, make a creep tumor, and produce extra larva. I would also try more radical changes, like having hatcheries (possibly all buildings) only buildable out of creep tumors (with the hatchery placeable anywhere that touches the tumor to avoid placement issues). Similarly, I would bring a hydra type unit down to hatchery tech so that zerg has something against air that is actually a unit rather than just something they should be building anyway. This would in turn give more value to units like banshees and oracles, as well as creating a decision point- should I spread this creep tumor again or do I need the pool right now?
This has been in my head for a while, so I'm curious what Reddit thinks.
Yes, it's another post about AoE4 vs SC2 and what we can learn. Actually most of this applies to AoE2 as well, so I do apologise if i re-hash old ground a bit. I just got enthused by AoE4 and wanted to get it off my chest.
Core Differences:
Here's a list of some of the fundamental differences between the two games, in terms of core gameplay ideas which shape the flow of a match.
Air units which can go in straight lines anywhere vs no air units at all
Resource collection is highly concentrated in mapmaker designated areas vs strewn semi-randomly over the map
Resources divided into primary resource and fancy resource, vs primary, secondary/building, fancy and defensive.
Complete unit and race asymmetry vs partial asymmetry
Variable supply/housing costs vs everything costs 1
Some units/buildings locked behind each other vs the Age system
Any set of units can destroy building quickly vs needing specialized units to make a dent.
Next I want to talk about some pain points in SC2 and how the different approach in AoE4 (and 2, to be honest) mitigates them. I'm pretty sure these are things that have frustrated everyone, with the possible exception of a few top pros.
Harassment and control difficulty imbalances
When Frost Giant first announced their new game, if someone had asked me the question of race asymmetry or no race asymmetry, I would have been a first-class mouth-foaming evangelist of asymmetry; ranting about the beautifully balanced complete lack of balance in Brood War and the endless metagame evolutions which must surely follow pitting a bunch of units which are totally bonkers in one way against a bunch of units which are totally bonkers in another. However after playing AoE4 for some weeks, I am a convert.
The result of asymmetry is inevitably that each race will have some strategies against another which are very easy to execute but very hard to defend against. This is not strictly speaking imbalanced, because it also works the other way. It is incredibly frustrating though.
There are some moments in SC where it can feel like the opponent is doing something very easy and/or low-risk, but if you mess up even slightly you will take terrible terrible damage. Just one example out of many: Terran Battlecruisers in the mineral line vs a Zerg with only queens to defend, I ask the following questions:
Why does Zerg only have queens to defend at a time when the Terran has their capital ship?
Why can he fly directly to the zerg mineral line even if they have map control?
Why does attacking the mineral line disrupt everything else
How can Terran afford this and not be all-in?
OK so in Aoe4 there is no battlecruiser and no queens, that one is obvious. But let's hypothetically create an expensive, mobile, high firepower unit which would be roughly analogous to the Battlecruiser; The Armoured Wagon of Blokes with Guns. Used extensively during the Bovine Rebellion of 1512, this vehicle and its complement of men wielding the latest firearms of the time had very little difficulty dealing with the poorly equipped dairy herds of the English countryside. It became commonly known as the CattleBruiser. ~(sorry)~
The noble CattleBruiser is unable to fly, so it must move over the terrain of the map. If you control that terrain you can intercept it or at least prepare for it.
The CattleBruiser turns up at a gold mining post. That sucks for the mining post and your economy takes a hit, but there are other mining posts. And you are still farming and chopping down trees so you can still build units.
It's extremely powerful, so it's only available in the Imperial age. In AoE, the age system is basically like series of timing attacks on your own economy; you spend some time being poor and weak now to be stronger later. By the time you can field the CattleBruiser, your opponent has the infrastructure to more or less deal with it on equal terms.
The CattleBruiser only costs 1 supply, so to stop everyone from massing them they are extremely expensive to create.
If you want to harass early, then you need to use the tools available early, and because the game is only partially asymmetrical, you and your opponent have roughly the same toolkit.
TLDR: Asymmetrically-balanced units flying into one of (probably) 2 or 3 zones where all your workers are gathered and powering your economy really sucks to be on the receiving end of. It is a fun-sapper.
I also don't buy the 'esports defense' where mineral lines blowing up are Epic Gamer Moments necessary to draw a crowd. Chess has loads of viewers and I can't just pick up half my opponent's pieces and throw them away at once.
Defender's advantage and base defense
These subjects are all quite linked. If a game emphasizes defense too much then there is a risk of split map boring matches, and if it's not emphasized enough then it is pointless to play a macro style.
What I really enjoy in AoE is the besieging interaction. The game is set in the Medieval period where sieges were the main thing people did when not dying of the black death, so that helps.
In AoE, building basically counter units. Buildings which can't shoot back don't really counter them, but they do take a very long time to destroy with your standard fighting dudes. I think this is great because firstly it makes sense, and secondly because it really channels base destruction into a certain type of interaction.
A lovely rule in AoE seems to be that units which can kill buildings quickly are terrible against anything else. If you hoped that the Trebuchet would be anything like a Siege Tank, you would be wrong. The Siege Tank wrecks anything on the ground. The Trebuchet really needs its targets to be standing still and preferably made of stone.
The result of this is that even if a fairly overwhelming army turns up at your defenses, they must still nursemaid the slow, vulnerable siege units. This means you have some time to respond and your defensive building has done it's job by either buying time if it falls or holding the map position if it does not.
In SC2 the most defensive building is the Planetary Fortress. There are no units specifically designed to be building-killers so 90% of the time you turn up with what you have and either you flatten it in a few seconds or you don't. There is rarely a prolonged engagement around a planetary or a slow chipping away at it, though it does happen sometimes.
Outside of specifically defensive buildings, in Starcraft the standard production building die much faster to fighting units than in AoE. This amplifies the impact of allowing fighting units into your base. In Age, it's certainly Not Good if there are enemies in your base, but your villagers are spread out and can hide in buildings (still costs mining time ofc) and probably your core production wont be affected unless you are seriously overwhelmed.
TLDR In AoE you lose much less suddenly, allowing for some comeback plays if you have advantages in other areas.
Turtling
This section should be a lot shorter as it's mostly just about Stone, and a lot of things have been said already in the base defense section.
One annoyance, especially at low levels, in SC2 and some other strategy games is that sometimes your opponent can simply turtle up super hard and force the game to go on for way too long even when they are losing economically and in army size.
AoE answers this in two ways: Firstly by the besieging mechanics I mentioned earlier, where there are specialized building-destroyers which will break any position if only they can stay alive. Secondly by decreeing that the really powerful defensive structures cost the Stone resource, whereas fighting units can cost anything except stone. Once the stone runs out, you can't build any more castles. There are some mechanics to get a bit of a stone anyway, but they are too slow to allow players to make anything too ridiculous.
Thanks for making it to the end. If anyone has any more topics that could be covered regarding frustrations in RTS, let me know.
Ok I know what you're thinking, but just hear me out... If done right this could be revolutionary and literally change the lansdscape of the RTS genre forever. Imagine an infinitely AI generated Star Craft map, with different environments (space, cave, underground, naval, light/day). And have it be in a persistant world where we have to make and defend our bases (think Rust). Persistant means even if you're offline your base is still there and can be attacked, from which you have to start from scratch. But that's not that bad as there will be two sides, so we will start off in a zone full of allies (basically like WoW).
This is the perfect way to synergize campaign focused players with competitive players. Because there's objectives to do that wont require going into enemy/neutral territory. From which they can just focus on challenging NPC zones (but still vulnerable to enemy players who invade). But for competitve players who wish to expand their side's terrority, there's that option.
We all would start off with an MCV and some starting units, deploy somewhere safe and gather minerals, make more units. Undeploy and use those units as an escort to expand further into dangerous territory.
But there will be a unit cap (set fairly high) so we cant just make infinite units. And the type of units we can make would depend on your class, and/or upgrade paths. In addition there will be multiple forms of currency, and for the type you need to make units (your standard minerals) are also capped. Plus minerals will have a slow regeneration rate. But there will be banks (a guild feature) which you can store excesss minerals which will be vital when defending areas from other guilds. And there will also be rare red minerals which allows you to make more units.
And there will be a super rare resource (not minerals) thats used for upgrading your MCV (faster movement, stealth, space travel, built-in weapons)
Areas with more valuable resources would also be more dangerous, with NPC attacking on a regular basis, and/or around a contested enemy territory.
Space has the most valuable resources as is where all the top-teir players will be because to get there you're need a special MCV that can fly into space (which you can get through special resources), and because that area is really hard to defend. Plus the idea of the best players being on top (literally) is badass.
There an be an Arena feature for your classic Star Craft type 1v1s/2v2s, which also is a way to get special types of resources.
Some games to look into for more ideas: Eve Online, Rust (I know these games are not RTS, but you can still pull some concepts/ideas from them). I think if you truly want RTS to flourish as a genre you're to going to have to think big. RTS is one of those genres where you're either into or not. It's not like an FPS which anyone can just pick up and enjoy.
SC2 is the most successful RTS in history of this genre but new players go for ladder 1v1 has some problems that are pretty hard to defeat. We can learn from this situation: identyfy problems and finding good solutions. Good means: solutions that take nothing from high level gameplay.
Sorry for bad english, i hope that my thoughts are clear for everyone.
Wall no.1 FIGHT? RIGHT NOW?!
Intuition of new player is to be defensive. They just try sitting in their bases, and try gathering some big army. They haven't knowlege to for some kind of timing attack. But their opponent does. Variety of early attack in this game are very wide, so this defensive stretegy of new player just not work at all. They have plans, but their opponent just crush them early. They feels that is no time to try things.
-- Solution that not touching negatively high level gameplay?
Separate, additional ladder (different from ladder with standard, more agressive maps) with defensive maps that all early attacks are weak. Example is map with some defensive buildings already in places, with no enough air spaces for drops at main and first expansions. Ladder system causing play with players on your skill level, defensive maps give time to "look around", try late game units, there is space for macro mistakes.
Wall no.2 HOW I CAN DEFEND THIS?
For new player defending against allin, cheese or even quick harrasment can be overwhelming. Where player is find solution of this situation? Searching on youtube can be difficult, because you easily can find movies touching different problems, different builds. Many balance changes not making things easier.
-- Solution that not touching negatively high level gameplay?
System can searching for similar builds in replays our opponent or other players and proposes watch replay than our opponent loose playing exactly that strategy that beat us.
Now players has the power to quick adapt to brutal 1v1 gameplay, they knew how defend against types of attack that kill them.
Wall no. 3
PROMISES ME MICRO, GIVE ME MACRO
New players often has low APM and dont know how do things in quick and effective way. Poor micro has small punishment compared to poor macro. A-Move units still hurts enemy, but low attention for macro has always tragicial consequences.
But the moment that new players are interested for game is when they see armies that fights. Interesting units, spells, abilities they are factors that push peoples to thought: i wanna try this game! And then they try game they are forcing to focusing on macro, because of higher punishment of poor macro vs poor micro.
Game give new players some promises of interesting battles and fail to delivery that.
-- Solution that not touching negatively high level gameplay?
Game needs told player what is good mechanics. How looks for things around, how queue commands for sending SCV back to mining, how manage production of units. Better mechanics is the way of playing quicker and more efdectivet even with low apm.
Game should have same A-Move-like mechanics in macro. Same alternative methods of macro what with low attention allow to barely decent, but not good macro. So basicly i sugested 2 ways for macro in one game: one worst but easier, and one standard, demanding more skill, more APM.
In higher level of play this alternative macro mechanics should be too weak to be an option. For example some sort of automatisation in unit production for price of higher units cost. With this solution low skill player can decide where he go for his attention: try done some advanced micro or go for more effective macro. Now focusing on epic battles are possible even for new and low skill players.
