RTS by GGG
|
So...Diablo franchise was buried by GGG deep into the ground.
Is it time for new RTS by GGG with same monetezation system? Many casual players and cybersportsmen need new strategy. Stormgate failed , SC2 is bearly breathing , Wc3 is dead. So ? what GGG is waiting for? What do you want this strategy to look like? Last bumped on Mar 18, 2024, 2:42:18 PM
|
|
|
I currently play warcraft 3 reforged, it´s still the best rts game out there.
Unfortunatly, rts games are not popular anymore, nobody wants to play challenging and stressfull games. Thats why i would suggest severel quality of live features, like auto-link your offensive units to a button and your worker and produktionbuildings to another. Thats at least how i play, on 4 my armee, on 3 my produktion, on 2 my workers. That brings me to another issue, it´s unnatural to have your fingers on QWER and not on ASDF, that means, that kontrollgroups should be bound to QWER. For the art style, i want my rts to be high fantasy, poe lore doesnt cut it in therms of Race variaty. |
|
|
TOTA was a good stab at a non-ARPG game mode and it was very popular. Was it balanced? Kind of. Eventually.
If you thought balance issues were a problem with POE, which is essentially a small skirmish scope RTS, imagine balancing a POE-flavoured Starcraft or Age of Nosepickers. Some of the pack behaviour and rare monster pack-minion buffs can be ported right over. As for players, taking a page from the necro playbook and giving AI generals things like woke generosity, Necromantic Aegis, Animated Guardians (turtle?) and offering buffs might backfire in a big hurry. And terrain plays a big part in RTS games, whereas in POE we're used to just zooming wherever we like. New maps would have to be designed with unit range/LOS, choke points, and resource availability in mind. One way you can make resources strategic but not one-off is to place them as shrines with a temporary effect and a respawn timer. Like they already are on some of the PVP arena maps. As far as user friendliness, most RTS are notoriously clicky and micro intensive. I would imagine GGG's approach to this would be maximal carpal tunnel, and on that basis alone, I don't think it will ever take off. [19:36]#Mirror_stacking_clown: try smoke ganja every day for 10 years and do memory game
|
|
" I find it fun to play warcraft 3 campaign, I do not find it hard or stressful. Haven't tried reforged, but I dun understand why play a similar game when they could be producing other themes. |
|
|
Sorry to highjack your thread, but i could totaly see a PoE card game.
Unlike all Cardgames, you start with a strong hero which already has core mechaniks for your deck. Basicly this cardgame has a Hero editor, with total life, energy shield, damage, armour and permanents. To clearyfy, you would start with those permanents rather then waiting for them to be drawn. Your hero has a weapon, which has between 1-4 damage and armour which decreases damage taken by that amount like by 1 or 2. Energyshield is always recoverd at the start of your turn. Evrything has a cost asociated to it, so you won´t start to redicoules and there is still the regular deck component. Some examples for those power´s: At the start of your turn, return all friendly minions to your hand, they cost 0 If a minion dies it spawns this 2 cost minion. Playing minons always cause them to be duplicated into your deck. Your minions can stack up there power´s. You can swap your deck with your graveyard at any given time. Discard all cards with X cost from your deck. |
|
|
I woudnt even say rts games are not popular, its more like they are hard to make
Even pre-rot blizzard struggled to get starcraft 2 into a good state. Its in a super nice spot atm, but it took years to make it happen, wings of liberty have quite a troubled history with many players and the bulk of the pro community rejecting the game and sticking with starcraft 1. Starcraft 2 showed how making a competitive rts is hard, balance issues and gameplay considerations almost made the title tank. Blizzard struggled to make people accept starcraft 2 over 1. A new series would likely face similar issues starcraft 2 faced and its unlikely it would be able to afford expansions to recover like starcraft 2 did Basically, the development is intense and it takes strong creative effort. You need actual quality gameplay and if its a multiplayer-focused title, balance issues can make it go downhill. We do have real time single-players, but multiplayers simply arent worth the risk, from a developers perspective, not when first person style games are so safer by simply being formulaic People still play the genre, starcraft is still the king of games on south korea and titles like total war and they are billions show the genre has public. But classic blizzard established a solid grasp on multiplayer rts, competing with their titles is a risky adventure developers arent willing to go for(ea killed westwood and microsoft struggled to keep the standards set on age of empires 1 and 2, age of mitology failed to take off as a multiplayer), thus, most late rts are single-player-focused |
|
" "its more like they are hard to make" is the /thread to this question. They're IMPOSSIBLE to make without a huge team. There was a livestream where an SC2 dev said that the problem with RTS is that the genre has been perfected. Either AoE2 or SC2 is pretty much the pinnacle of the genre, and you could make another game with an Infantryman instead of a Marine or a Musketeer; but in the end you just end up making a reskin of a shittier Aoe2/SC2. |
|
