RTS

This genre has some of the best design to discuss video game theorycrafting and game quality. Supreme Commander FA has dozens of units and placements amongst 3 factions and is still one of the most balanced games in the industry. I don't want to think that 161 champions in League of Legends is quality or lasting design to imitate, especially because 4 abilities with cooldowns isn't very deep character action. Top-down, click-move is also a problem that would need to eventually be innovated to keep up with player wants, expectations, fantasy, and other-studio likelihood of imitating popular games, potentially with better features, plus the existence of other genres. MOBAs also have the problem of having 1 map, which is a potential point of similar-game innovation (maybe even competitive Diablo-likes).

•RTS is any other genre up until also having resources, location-based unit production, placements for various utility, etc.; any gameplay is possible: shooting, melee, vehicle...
•Singleplayer is surpassed by multiplayer; AI is mediocre or/and a lot to design, and real players are skillful, strategic, dynamic, and thus fun and are readily-available; singleplayer games are shelved in one month or two (see Elden Ring); multiplayer games are the most played, lastingly playable, and lucrative.
•Games are easy to make; GTA games used to be made in 1 year and are some of the most fun, varied, critically acclaimed, and almost, if not completely voice acted games; a few developers is enough to make a couple of characters, items, areas, and activities and have an MMO of content in 1 month.

1/2

Attached: MOBA vs. RTS.png (800x600, 21.31K)

So, say what you would, at this juncture, about the industry; RTS is one of the most important genres because so many different types of gameplay are possible (see tab-target-with-hotkeys potential; WoW has some of the deepest gameplay in the industry, especially with trinity and a CC and gap-closer PvP metagame) and because location-based strategy and time-based status are not only some of the most important fundamentals in any genre, but also really rewarding and fun. A studio could easily out-design and out-advertise the most popular games, especially if describing science and physiology to let players know how much more fun your game is; getting excited about strategy and winning is simple because players can feedback-loop knowledge and performance (obtained from themselves or others) to think about fun gameplay over and again. You want players to play all day, and it's easy to design.

2/2

Attached: Playstyles.png (800x600, 37.15K)

bruh

im not reading all of this, but you've convinced me that RTS is better than MOBA

user, welcome to the thread.

what are you actually saying here?

>I don't want to think that 161 champions in League of Legends is quality or lasting design to imitate, especially because 4 abilities with cooldowns isn't very deep character action

2d platformers have like 4-5 moves max and that shit gets played for decades.
But it's not enough to look at the individual characters in a vacuum. It's the interactions between however many in a game and the various lineups with allies and enemies. The numbers are insane. With dota you throw in the 80+ active items and the interactions are practically infinite. It's why 1 map isn't an issue. It's all built around the 1 map.

Garbage thread

>2d platformers have like 4-5 moves max and that shit gets played for decades.
Do you have an example?

2D platformers aren't such compelling gameplay that they're the most played or lucrative games. 2D is surpassed by 3D because people want to live in a world and be skillful. An example of a more popular 2D game is Terraria, but it also doesn't have the popularity of competitive multiplayer games, even if sales, availability, and popularity have it at one of the most purchased.

>But it's not enough to look at the individual characters in a vacuum.
It should be; 1v1 is the best way to balance, which is not simply damage, because trinity exists, but at least survivability.

>The numbers are insane. With dota you throw in the 80+ active items and the interactions are practically infinite.
Do you have an example scenario or video where the abilities and items are either explained or obvious? In League, most items per character, maybe per role, are similar across matches.

>It's why 1 map isn't an issue. It's all built around the 1 map.
The gameplay isn't deep enough to warrant playing one map all day every day, especially not for weeks, months, or years; people enjoy multiple types of media all day, and games are interactive.

I see multiple threads like this every day, why are you so autistic? No one cares about mobas or rts anymore, let it go

You can't refute the validity or relevance of the content.

Having multiple of a topic in a day is OK; different times have different demographics and amounts of users.

I mentioned that RTS is one of the most important genres; comparing it to MOBAs is to establish similar-game fundamentals and popularity potential, them technically being the same genre up to the point of favoring RTS because of so much more momentary storyworth.

MOBAs are still some of the most played games, which says a lot about gaming right now. People still enjoy lobby games even though persistent worlds are more rewarding. Not very many alternatives to lobby games exist, especially competitively. Competitive games are some of the most played and lucrative. F2P with monetization is easy to design, even if purchasing actual gameplay content isn't the most satisfying. All of these correlate with optimal designs.

Not sure what you are getting at, that MOBA are shit? Because yes they are shit that spawned from the most boring aspect of WC3 and popularized by Korea, the creators of the most boring games possible.

MOBA were a harbinger of games to come, the endless additions to a single game because its playerbase consists of tired people after work/school who don't have the energy left to learn to do something else.

Everyone I've known that plays shit like League, F2P MMOs, etc its all because its easy to start and once they are in they don't have the time or energy to find a new game. Can't blame them to an extent since some games barf things to learn at you so much it starts to feel like homework.

I don't think they're garbage, but I do think they're shallow, repetitive, and mechanically simple (compared to 3D gameplay, a persistent world, gathering, crafting, and trading, and size, mobility, and abilities rivaling comics). I don't think they should be really popular for much longer, especially if somebody popularizes how much more castable a quality RTS is, being a sandbox of options and momentary potential.

People want variety: depth: risk: reward. Every game can be made for everybody because every playstyle can be learned in about 1 hour and because physiology is near, if not 100% similar.

MMOs have a different problem that MOBAs have partially solved in that leveling is an arbitrary removal of content for padding and no other benefit, often gating content, not contributing much to interesting challenge, often making the PvP playing field unfair, and often making low level content irrelevant, especially in the midst of potentially having an economy, lots of relevant characters, and lots of items. Linear, permanent equipment is even more of an issue than that because what is a character supposed to do when it has gear? People don't have a problem playing MOBAs because they're OK alternatives to MMOs at this juncture, but why play when an MMO is a much better designed experience that has both immediate access to instanced, rated PvP and starts the character in a world with all the options of a sandbox?

>Do you have an example?
speedrunners play tons of 2d platformers. mario, megaman, castevania, metroid. All quite popular with limited movesets. but the context of levels changes those sets.

>It should be; 1v1 is the best way to balance, which is not simply damage, because trinity exists, but at least survivability.
1v1 doesn't exist in mobas it only exists in fighting games, rts and some niche shooters

>Do you have an example scenario or video where the abilities and items are either explained or obvious? In League, most items per character, maybe per role, are similar across matches.
Itemization in dota is game winning or losing. There's actives for escape; invisibility, target push, blink, temporary invulnerability, illusion creation and various debuffs and heals. Choosing and using the right item against the enemy lineup has an impact.
A famous recent example of (slightly) unorthodox item build was OG in ti. A hero that can attack multiple units at once built the item that drains mana on attack. The opponents lineup was heavily mana dependent and in one teamfight they essentially turned and won the game because the enemy carry was reliant on mana to output damage.
But this all factors in with the draft. Drafting is a huge aspect of dota, heroes are less similar than league and some directly counter eachother. Picking and banning creates another layer to the game.

>The gameplay isn't deep enough to warrant playing one map all day every day, especially not for weeks, months, or years; people enjoy multiple types of media all day, and games are interactive.
I could easily argue the reverse. it's clear that rts are mostly unbalanced and not deep enough otherwise why would you need more than one map?
More variety is good. But mobas are balanced around the map, the scale, location positions are its fundamentals. Play with these and the hero balance is thrown off kilter.

MOBA is RTS for retards. Think about it.

MOBAs: You have an RTS map where most units produce and control themselves and you don't have to do anything but control one Hero unit.

It's five retards doing the work of one human.

>speedrunners play tons of 2d platformers. mario, megaman, castevania, metroid. All quite popular with limited movesets. but the context of levels changes those sets.
Mario and a few indie games have some recent popularity, but 2D platformers aren't usually very popular; how is this relevant to the discussion? MOBA gameplay is surpassed by WoW trinity and the variety: depth of the CC and gap-closer meta and of class fantasy. People don't realize that these games aren't very fun or realize that better options exist, even in other genres (a shooter is one of the most skillful and skill-developing genres), so studios that know this and still try to exploit the popularity of MOBAs aren't being true to their users; "everything will be known".

>1v1 doesn't exist in mobas it only exists in fighting games, rts and some niche shooters
A 1v1 gamemode not existing != 1v1 not existing; 1v1 happens often, and characters are inherently 1 performer. You can't refute 1v1 as the best design philosophy.

>I could easily argue the reverse. it's clear that rts are mostly unbalanced and not deep enough otherwise why would you need more than one map?
To have different strategies; larger maps are more dependant on air units, which are faster; smaller maps are more dependant on land units; some maps have navy. Having more simultaneous options is more strategy.

>More variety is good. But mobas are balanced around the map, the scale, location positions are its fundamentals. Play with these and the hero balance is thrown off kilter.
Map design has specifics. Resources, areas, and routes should be controllable. Players should be able to make laps around the edges of a map to limit access to their units; objectives should be placed here because it's the most strategic location. You want spontaneous gameplay, so knowing and choosing optimals is important.

>People want variety: depth: risk: reward.
I wish man. I do and sounds like you do, but these things live on because a lot of gamers don't want complex. They want no brain fun with a reward feedback system that makes it feel like they did a thing.

Too many people are happy to dump money into a flavor of the month and then return to the simple boredom of the familiar game that is the digital equivalent of meth.

Like you and I probably hate cash shops and paying for skins because in the past a game was finished and those things were unlockables for finding secrets and playing the game. But today we have a whole generation that grew up post Oblivion Horse Armor DLC and actually likes and wants to just purchase shit in a game. Its like how people will buy exercise stuff and still be fat, it feels like progress and accomplishment to buy the workout weights and clothes, but the only thing that is progress is actually working out. Same here we have a large group in the gaming populace that wants to instant buy success and doesn't want pulse pounding adrenaline in the game, they want to tune out their brain (or rage because we aren't allowed to every be angry anywhere else anymore even where there is real shit to be mad about instead of games)

MMOS are an unsolvable issue. Its impossible to make them accessible for new players while rewarding old players in a system that values achievements (another thing the newer wave of gamers care about that the old couldn't give a fuck about usually) and constant quick and many rewards. Nobody is bold enough to make a game that is about the journey, the story, each level having a meaning and purpose, and every journey being a different path, in other words actually making one after Dungeons and Dragons


RTS is just too hard for new gamers. Sorry I'm not even trying to shit on them, its not their fault they just grew up after the crash and after games were turned to extract money like a video poker machine.

>I wish
Competitive multiplayer games are the most played and lucrative; all somebody has to do is design and advertise perfection.

Your perspective on demographics, RTSs, MMOs, and the industry is drivel; the opposite of nearly everything you said is true.

Attached: 0.png (882x1200, 280.88K)

RTS:
>base(d) building
ASSFAGGOTS
>cringe shit

Attached: umad.png (512x384, 432.55K)

>Competitive multiplayer games are the most played and lucrative;
Didn't say otherwise. Part of the problem. Sell a bare bones game people will mindlessly bash away at and sell merch/skins/musicvideos/etc. Also known as every game popular in Korea.
>all somebody has to do is design and advertise perfection.
Yes all they have to do is a massive amount of spending that no publisher with a soul is going to spend. The money mobile games spend just for a popup to show on another game would astound you.

>Your perspective on demographics, RTSs, MMOs, and the industry is drivel; the opposite of nearly everything you said is true.
Oh do go on tell me how its not totally right.

RTS games are too complex for modern gamers as they take time to learn and people don't have that time these days or the energy often. I like RTS games but iit can be tough to break into any that are established because the gap between a casual player that likes to build up a base because its fun and the one that is going to zerg a motherfucker in the optimum way is huge.

MMOs, I lost years of time to them, and its the balance. You need an expanding player base to keep the world alive, but if a new player can close the gap on an older player then it alienates early adopters by devaluing what they do, but not having gap closers alienates the needed new players. This results in a constant clearing of the board by new content releases and creates the never ending treadmill with the carrot always out of reach. Its why multiple MMOs sell a fast pass way to max level now, because gone is the fun of leveling up and creating a character when only that last level matters.

And I'm right about the industry. Many gamers want to buy skins as much as they want to live in the skinner box. Horse armor sold. These things exist because they sell. Diablo Immortal made bank for a reason. Some people want pay to win because its a way they can win. You can disagree, if you like being wrong.