next »

[Dacke]

I think there's room for both kinds of games. If you want something intense where fast reactions and frantic clicking will give you a victory, just play any typical RTS.

But I think lots of people, like me, would enjoy more games that keep the real time and strategy. But reduce/remove the frantic aspects. Turn based is fine too, but they tend to feel more dry and angst-inducing for some reason. I like games that keep moving regardless of my input, but allow me to feel like I make clever choices without first having to invest years in click-training.

[ProgramGamer]

Casual RTS? That seems like an oxymoron to even propose...

[Dacke]

No twitch = casual?

[ProgramGamer]

...Casual-er?..

[Dacke]

less twitch = more casual

Most casual game: go

[gimymblert]

I was thinking about a casual rts, but "tug of war" and moba are kinda that already.

Mine was more like a single map tank rush, where one of the main resource is the souls of dead unit, so you can only access higher tier with souls. So you start with basic unit with basic souls, until you unlock higher type of unit with higher souls level which unlock the next tiers. lesser souls can't buy higher level unit no matter what. The twist is that you have only a limited slot of simultaneous unit, and the souls rate depend on how many enemy hit you takes (honor, no suicide), the goal is to destroy enemy head quarters. The idea was to have an escalation mechanics until a big finale.

[Dacke]

Was that a game you planned to make?

As Jimym says, there already are a bunch of real time strategy games without as much twitch as typical RTSs.
Tugs of war (mods, ironclad tactics), mobas, Defcon, large army battles (ultimate general, total war), node based games (eufloria, galcon).

[Alevice]

For example, there are certain SC2 mods where you build buildings that spawn automated units every ~20s. So it doesn't matter when in those 20 seconds you build your buildings. So in a sense it's turn based, where each turn takes place simultaneously and is "activated" every 20 seconds. But you have to continuously keep track of how the fight is going and make decisions based on that information. Plus they often mix in some purely real time elements, like activating abilities.

You still may get a small advantage by building your buildings as close to the 20s mark as possible and building stuff quickly so you can spend more time watching the fight. But those advantages are pretty negligible in a non-pro environment (unlike SC2, where doing as much as possible all the time will allow you to crush other non-pros)

Strategic games in real time, almost no twitch needed but the games don't feel slow/boring.

You speak of Tug of War maps such as Nexus wars, which often have similar issues, like build sync, optimal income gains, and so on. Its true that you might not die immediately after a bad opener, but its just as hard to gain traction again, unless a teammate pretty much carries you, which is a situation that also happens on non ranked team games over vanilla sc2.

I think the real nature of the problem is that Starcraft 2 pushed ladder over custom (read no arcade) games too hard on peoples throats. There is barely room for casual games, which I could encounter much more easier over SC1 (NO RUSH!, BIG GAME HUNTERS!), whereas here is basically rnaking ranking and more ranking all over the goddamn mother fucking place. So everybody wants to be a pro now.

ABout twitch

http://www.rakrent.com/rtsc/html/boring.htm
http://www.rakrent.com/rtsc/rtsc_time.htm
http://www.rakrent.com/rtsc/html/time2.htm

[Alevice]

I have honestly found lots of parallels between fighting games and rts where at higher levels you have to rely on consistent input, tons of psychology and builds/combos

[Alevice]

I will probably make an RTS thread later. Its a genre I deeply love despite being so bad at it, and there is so much to learn in its history in regards to success and failures.

[Dacke]

You speak of Tug of War maps such as Nexus wars, which often have similar issues, like build sync, optimal income gains, and so on.

I didn't say that removing twitch would remove the need for good play, what I am saying is quite the opposite. More focus on strategy over mechanical skill is just what I find more enjoyable interesting, it's not a magic way of making games more casual/accessible.

We already know that you can have games with deep strategy and <1APM needed for optimal play. Like Chess and Go. Chess and Go still require good openings and you will get destroyed by a better player. So I don't see why we can't have games that take place in real time and require ~10APM for optimal play.

[Alevice]

We already know that you can have games with deep strategy and <1APM needed for optimal play. Like Chess and Go. Chess and Go still require good openings and you will get destroyed by a better player. So I don't see why we can't have games that take place in real time and require ~10APM for optimal play.

I can totally respect your preference, but your comparison is completely flawed, since the time factor doesnt account at all on turn based. You are comparing apples with oranges.

I am not agaisnt removing "twitch" (a word that I find dergoatory in this context, tbh), and UI and unit behavior revamps is something I greatly appreciate - I have humored such a game before actually.

You might be interested into trying Dawn of War, it includes plenty of macro aspects that try to minimize the amount of clicking you have to do (its whole squad system, overwatch (aka autobuild system), all sorts of combat stances, buildings and squads are fast deployed, units and buildings are durable enough, sof counters, etc), while still keeping any semblance to a dune clone (aka the traditional rts model).

[Dacke]

Time is a huge factor in chess and go, you can't play them seriously without a clock. Making your moves quickly is a small advantage as you will get more time on the clock, but the advantage is negligible in most games¹. Mechanical skill / execution simply isn't a big factor. What I'm saying is that there is a spectrum, from timed turn-based games to the most intense and disorganizing RTSs.

The claim I made was that it's possible to create real time strategy games that don't require high mechanical skill to play well. Not that that would make for objectively better games. Sorry if I was being rude about it.

I usually get lots of interesting tips when discussing this, but since I don't use Windows I usually can't play most of them. Though I've had great success with Wine lately, so I may give it a go, thanks.

1. But I do play chess with 1min on the clock sometimes, which turns it into a game of dexterity more than anything else.

[Alevice]

No offense taken, I cant further elaborate since I am at work and currently under time pressure (the irony is not lost on me). Got to check my idea as well?

[Dacke]

It sounds like a potentially good idea. I would probably love it, it sounds like just my kind of game. But I'm not sure how well it would work as a multiplayer game, if you're supposed to program lots of strategy ahead of time. I'm also not clear on why you'd want to get troops on the ground quickly, wouldn't it be optimal to wait as long as possible to dump a huge wave using all your cash? Or I guess there would be objectives that you'd want to reach asap or something like that.

[gimymblert]

Was that a game you planned to make?

I have honestly found lots of parallels between fighting games and rts where at higher levels you have to rely on consistent input, tons of psychology and builds/combos

It was more an idea in the back of my mind, which was more or less fully fleshed out but never tested. The goal was precisely to bring RTS to what alevice said. Ie short session time, high reactivity and come back mechanics to avoid "strategy lockdown" where first move decide the match.

In a fighting game, the strategic decision is who you play, then it's all tactical.

The design was literally flowing from the premise. At a base level tank rush are fun, building order are a pain (memorize the optimal build depending on the strategy) and the real game is gated behind a spreadsheet wall you have to memorize. I had the idea after thinking about smash bros and phoenix wright. So let's have a game with almost no resource gathering, combo bar that fills up for change of pace (the souls system) resource management (slot) and no build order (you choose the equivalent of a fighting character), unit being basically the different move you pull out again your opponent.

An ideal PURE strategy game is a game in which you choose policy then let the game play automatically until next big decision point. I think card game like magic with deck building are more strategic because of that.

[battlerager]

I'm loving the discussion generated here.

It's cool to finally see a "genre" name for that sorta map / game. 'Tug of war', huh. I remember playing 'LEGO Wars' and similar custom Warcraft 3 maps, cool to hear that genre is still alive. Sounds like the genre is ready for a big standalone hit game! 



Offtopic, but I just wanted to say that your latest post has been your most readable yet, Gimmy. Great work!

[Dacke]

I've been toying with a tug-of-war concept for ~10 years, though the idea has morphed a lot over the years. But creating a multiplayer game as an indie feels a bit like the MMO trap 

[Alevice]

Cant reply as indeep as I would like, but Swords and Soldiers for pc and wii is basically a modern tug of war

[Dacke]

I played that, but I wasn't a big fan. I may be mistaken, but it didn't feel like it had enough opportunities for strategic depth? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

The game I'd want as a standalone (and currently the biggest inspiration for my idea) is the SC2 mod Colonial Line Wars. Though it may have died or changed into something unrecognizable since I played it 3-4 years ago. The SC2 mod system made sure that the mod version on the Europe server was always out of date and not enough people were playing it  

The interesting thing about Colonial Line Wars was that it had so many different, subtle mechanics. You had to balance unit composition, position, tech tree, economic investment in different lanes, static defenses, etc.

One of the more interesting mechanics was that there were three lanes that you could send units down. You got money based on how far you'd pushed each lane. You could upgrade each lane, so that you got more money for each controlled checkpoint in the lane. You could also see how much the enemy had invested in each lane. So if you had pushed a lane very far, you could upgrade it a lot and get tons of cash. But you'd also become vulnerable, because if the enemy saved up and suddenly made a massive push you'd lose all your income before you could react.