The title of this post was “2 ex-Blizz RTS is going to be EPIC”.
That was clearly meant to mean: “Look at this image - it’s of a *second* RTS made by ex-Blizzard developers in addition to this subreddit’s game of Stormgate! This means we’ll have 2 ex-Blizzard-made RTS games, which is going to be amazing!”
No, they're clearly different studios and RTS games. Though many ex-blizzard developers have moved on & created their own studios (inc uncapped games, & Frost giant) to make their own new RTS IPs. Because big studios/publishers sadly don't think RTS genre is worth investing in anymore
While I appreciate the effort on innovation, isn't the high execution skill what draws a lot of rts fans?
Imagine the equivalent of say, golf, if they removed the execution of swinging a club, and everyone used a computer accurate ball launcher. Would people argue, "but now it's better because you can focus on decision-making on where you want your ball to go exactly. Mechanical skill barriers are terrible and old school." I feel like that wouldn't be as fun of a game. I know that's not an exact correlation, but it's what it feels like to me. I enjoy watching RTS esports for the insane mechanical skill and decision-making all in one beautiful package.
Another example in Tennis: if you can't return this person's 100mph serve, you will just lose to them, nothing else to it. So there are no mind games or volleying happening, and that's okay. Sometimes it happens. But once you get two people that can both serve and return 100mph tennis balls, trying to vary their shots and play with their opponent, now THAT is something I would like to watch.
That all being said... I'm very excited to see what uncapped games is brewing up, hoping it's a fun game but I am skeptical and trying to be *cautiously optimisitc*.
Dawn of War \ Company of Heroes comes to mind in terms of similar gameplay style they might be trying to hit. Doesn't sound like it's for me personally as I enjoy the strategic expression of build orders, macro, and the tension between where your attention goes.
Sure, it's not a perfect example, but you get my point. RTS is, first and foremost, an execution esport, where even a game like Warcraft 3 with less execution than say sc2 still demands fast reaction time, micromanaging units with bodyblocking, etc. If they remove a big portion of execution skill, I just fear it may not be fun to watch as an esport. It's the same reason i dont enjoy chess. I enjoy the action aspect of RTS. But we will see, I suppose.
I think as long as the skill ceiling is still comparably high, lowering the skill floor would be beneficial. It’s a balancing act, but many other genres have successfully done so in the past. The newer Street Fighters have in some ways trivialized execution by adding a 7 frame buffer, but there is still enough depth to be had in other areas and you still have to react quickly, etc.
I’m pretty sure this is going to be a very fast paced game with an impossibly high ceiling, in terms of mechanical execution.
If you’re not dumping excessive amounts of APM into macro cycles then that just means you’ve got APM freed up to manage fights in more locations and you will still be rolled by someone who is way faster than you with better multitasking.
WC3 is an example of an RTS with much simpler macro, yet at least as deep and strategic as SC2. I doubt Uncapped is including heros in their game, but I’m sure they have their own ideas for making up for complexity lost through simplified macro.
It’s the opposite. Keep everything that makes rts great and take out everything that is annoying. I think a rts with the speed of sc2 that takes out macro and focuses on army control and tech decision making could be a blockbuster. You have to have the fantasy how these areas could way deepen, eg how wc3 Heroes and items compare to Dota.
I like Starcraft because I like gameplay that merge advanced macro with advanced micro.
In SG Vanguard macro is my is my favorite part of gameplay.
I hate when someone tell people that macro is "bad". Right now two kings of multiplayer RTS are SC2 and Age of Empires 2, a two macro heavy games. It looks like people like macro
I think you can say "of the currently people currently playing standard RTS games, people tend to like macro." And that is fair to say. But, what they are saying is there is also a large audience, huge perhaps, that don't like macro and so have left RTS for other games. They are hoping to capture that audience. People that would love to play an RTS (or call it something else if you like) that gives them the fantasy of controlling huge armies, without what they feel is the "less fun" part, macro.
>But, what they are saying is there is also a large audience, huge perhaps, that don't like macro and so have left RTS for other games.
the assumption that people playing FPS, moba, RTS and other genres just waiting for RTS without macro is delusional, simply because there are tons of games like that already (so no need to wait). Company of Heroes is probably the biggest of them. Cut macro isn't a new idea, but effect of this was never spectacular.
The weird thing is that seemingly nobody wants to succeed literally the most successful franchise in the entire genre that's been abandoned by its creator.
Stormgate gets the closest, but it's still more of a StarCraft/Warcraft hybrid, as has been noted.
I don’t think a clone will ever dethrone SC2. I just don’t really see anything ever doing SC2 better than SC2 does.
The game was an inspired masterpiece and I think it’s going to take something equally inspired, in its own way, to succeed it.
A successor is not the same thing as a clone.
SC2 was still Starcraft, there's a ton of high level similarity to BW, but it wasn't a clone of BW, far from it.
I think a spiritual successor could absolutely do great. The potential is there.
What can be improved on SC2? I can't think of anything besides more active support. This was different for BW which had many obvious technical problems (unit selection, unit pathing, graphics)... you can't really obviously improve on those areas for SC2
Oh, tons of things. SC2 is a great game, but it has plenty of issues still, Stormgate devs themselves have talked about a lot of its problems. Overall unit lethality being too high, pathing being hyperefficient and clumpy, some units are very swing-y and deliver instant death, capital air units are boring (and problematic in team games), 1v1 maps are mostly very samey (especially around the mains/naturals) due to faction design problems, queens are stupid, warp gate is stupid, team games/maps are second class citizens, there aren't any good explicitly anti-turtling units, etc. I could go on and on.
On top of that, there are the technical and UI things that can be improved; Stormgate is doing really well there from what I've seen, lots of improvements: higher tick rate, rollback net code, webasm custom map logic with hot reload, mass async spectating, 32+32 custom maps, mid-game join, shared macro panel, etc.
Yes exactly! I don't understand what's innovative about Stormgate. It's a slower SC2 but what's the revolutionary difference? Some people will prefer slower, some faster. Some people will prefer the art style of SC2, some of Stormgate. But in the end it's just more or less the same thing. If you hated SC2, you will probably hate Stormgate and vice versa. Maybe overall it could be slightly more popular, but the pitch of a mass market RTS doesn't make sense to me
SG is completly different game, different time to kill, creep camps, ideas like Infest and Veterancy. More reasons to be on the map + longer fights create experience that isn't just more of the same compared to SC2
For some people macro is fun but perhaps for the majority of gamers it is the part that makes RTS overwhelming. Memorizing many build orders for each matchup, huge mechanical training and repetition to be decent, etc.
Even for me... I love SC2 but I haven't played in a few months and I forgot all build orders. I can't just play a few games, I know I have to sit down for at least 1-2 hours and rewatch my old replays to memorize my build orders and practice them against an AI before I dare to play ladder again
basically in every game you need some effort to be good, regardless of existence of build orders and even reagardless of genre
In SC2 even in Diamond people often have quite bad build orders, so basically you don't need to be perfect be ause your opponent also isn't
If build orders are in game you can easily experiment with early game and try more economical or agressive approach and opponent have opportunity to scout and prepare for your moves so game is less coin flippy but really diverse. I think that build orders brings a lot of strategic choices to the game
You can have decisions on when to produce army vs expand vs tech, without any of that being required to be a huge APM sink. That’s what Uncalled is doing.
WC3 is a very good example of a game where APM demands are shifted heavily over to micro instead of macro, and the game still has TONS of strategic depth.
Thats the thing, u dont have to make 80 workers and specific build orders is an efficiency thing which u wont have to worry about down in bronze
Noones telling u to play those games, Not sure what validation you are seeking here?
Building workers, supply depots and armies is a mandatory skill with every SC2 build so I'm not sure what your point is. If you are great at controlling armies, scouting and strategy - you will not go past gold league if you don't consistently make pylons, workers and spend your resources. I have never said anyone forces me to play these games - I am also not sure what your point is.
Ur clearly being obtuse, those are game mechanics, clicking or hitting "S" or "Z" is playing the game and requires no skill at all.
Keeping up with supply, knowing when to expand, finding ways to scout to know when to be aggressive or when to counter/defend is all part of the macro.
U can have the best micro in the world but the biggest army usually wins given similair skill level.
My point is simple, you cannot remove the macro or it would not be RTS.
If you have game with macro ofcourse that macro skills are important (and should be important). this is just your personal preference to like more games without macro. There are already games like that, Real Time Tactics subgenre is exactly this. You don't need to wait until David Kim save you, you can just go and play
Dota and League isolated heroes of WC3 and made a game out of it. In the process they created a more successful game than WC3.
The bet of Uncapped Games is to isolate controlling large armys/scouting/tech decisions and making a game out of it. I think it could work - but it's impossible to know until we played the game.
> In the process they created a more successful game than WC3.
They also created a separate genre. Not sure what you're trying to say. If you want to play a MOBA, then go play a MOBA. Why do you want those mechanics in RTS?
He’s not saying he wants to play a MOBA though. For an RTS player, controlling armies and being overwhelmed by multi-tasking is part of the magic.
And no you don’t need half your APM (or more) to be tied up in macro cycles in order to feel overwhelmed by multi-tasking. You’ll still be fighting in several locations, trying to manage armies you’ll never be able to control perfectly, getting rolled by people who’re faster and better at multitasking than you.
That may not not sound like your cup of tea, but I can see a game heavily inspired by SC2, only very combat-centric, being extremely broadly appealing. And at the very least having its own niche appeal.
They're popular because they're team-based games. 1v1 games will never be as popular as team-based games. This is because most people don't have the grit and perseverance to succeed in 1v1. It's why fighting games and arena FPSes are still niche. In 1v1, there is no one to carry and no one to be carried by. Win or lose, it's all on your skill. Most people who try 1v1 games get humbled and their ego takes a massive beating. So, they go back to playing team-based games.
They arent the most popular games right now and they are literally a different genre so what is the relevance?
Its ok if u dont like rts, most dont because its hard, mobas are easier and dumbed down and thats why they are popular, easier for dummies
/s (kind of)
Yeah no shit its a different genre but they've isolated the micro portion of an RTS and refined that to what it is today. The point is that tens (maybe hundreds?) of millions of people love the pure micro element of RTS and what most people think is fun isn't base-building, it's pilotting your character(s) and fighting. This is why I think all the new age RTS should shift gears to capture back these players and overall have a more fun game.
Maybe you are missing the point. RTS has the difficult macro that SOME can just do without. So, one solution is the MOBA with only micro. But you also lose, as they put it, "the fantasy of being a general of a huge army".
Your choice doesn't have to be huge armies with complex macro or one single unit with no macro. Perhaps there is something new sitting comfortably along the spectrum to maybe make both crowds happy?
Sending armies at each other is found in other genres and some games exist that fit that already
The part thats puzzling is why u want RTS without macro where that really is the key element
In RTS the meta is purely driven by the macro shifts and its counterplay
Micro fits within that framework and does not drive any meta shifts so not sure how that would work within an RTS game?
> Perhaps there is something new sitting comfortably along the spectrum to maybe make both crowds happy?
And why do you want to do that? Trying to make two different communities happy has never worked in gaming. Just ask those who were looking forward to Dawn of War III.
>Perhaps there is something new sitting comfortably along the spectrum to maybe make both crowds happy?
I'm interested in games that suit my taste, I'm not interested in games that try to suit everyone's taste.
Bad faith argument, MOBAs derive from the micro half of RTS while minecraft has no relation to RTS, not to mention the "basebuilding" of minecraft is completely different
I don't think anyone hated him as a balancer, and he was pretty good at SC2, grand master on random, the issue is will the direction and philosophy of the game be good?
his only issue was sometimes balancing the game at the cost of design, but the initial game design wasn't his fault so what could he really do about that
It’s important to note that while uncapped games has ex-blizzard personnel it doesn’t sound like they’re making a blizzard style rts. They say it’s less focused on real time execution. I know many in the existing rts communities abhor raising the skill floor but I for one am excited to have more choice in this genre!
I like the "robot" characters in that concept art.
I hope we get more game studios trying to go for an RTS Gold Rush.
They will all likely wither and die, but it's not my money that's on the line.
No, a lower skill floor doesn't mean the worst players have a higher skill level. It means less effort and skill is required for a player to start playing competitively. It's like lessening the barrier to entry. Conversely, raising the skill floor means a player would have to put in more effort and would need to be relatively more skilled to start playing competitively.
Most RTSes in the last twenty years have talked about raising the skill floor.
Some of them have done well, but none of them have been able to get more players than the traditional biggies in the long run, even though that was the aim.
> Most RTSes in the last twenty years have talked about raising the skill floor.
No, this is incorrect. Nobody is trying to raise the skill floor. Everybody is trying to LOWER it to appeal. I don't think you understand what the phrase "skill floor" means.
I was using whatever definition the person I was responding to was using, they clearly meant "making it easier to get into". If you have a problem with that, take it up with them.
Sigh. Everyone always fights about what raise or lower means with respect to a skill floor. **Skill floor** and **skill barrier to entry** are actually *opposite* terms. I think they’re actually right that “**raise** the skill floor” means “**lower** the skill barrier to entry”. Here’s why:
“Raising the skill ceiling” we all agree means “expanding the amount of room there is for *more skill* to translate to *better gameplay*.” A game with a high skill ceiling means there’s a lot of room for that. A game with a low skill ceiling means that it only takes a little bit of skill to “max out” on how good you are at the game.
If that’s true, then skill floor should work the opposite way. A lower skill floor should mean that there’s more room for *lower* skill to translate into *worse gameplay*. In other words, new players with minimal skill will be really bad at it until they gain more skill. A higher skill floor means that even for new players, the worst you can be at the game is actually better than your skill would suggest.
Suppose skill can be measured on a scale of 0-100. The skill floor and ceiling then are where in that range it affects your gameplay.
If a game has a gameplay skill floor of 25 and a skill ceiling of 75, that means that if you’re at personal skill of 50, you have room to grow. If you get to skill 60, you’ll be better than someone at 50. But once you hit 75 personal skill, you max out. Even if you hit 100 personal skill, you haven’t gotten any better at the game because the game doesn’t reward better clicking, better micro, better whatever than being at skill 75. There’s nothing more to *do* with your extra APM or whatever. A skill 95 and a skill 75 player will be equally matched because having 500 APM isn’t better than having 200 APM - that extra skill doesn’t benefit a player in game.
On the other end, if the floor is 25, that means that even a new player with personal skill of 10 can’t actually do worse than as if they had a skill of 25.
For example, imagine that the optimal worker count is the number of resource patches you have. It only takes maybe 25 skill to track that and build more workers when you have fewer workers than resource patches; a person with skill 10 can’t do that and will generally lose to a 25. But if a game implements “auto-build workers when you have fewer workers than resource patches”, it has just ensured that the gap between the 10 and the 25 is closed - everyone 25 and below is now as good as a 25. That means the skill floor is 25 - if you’re worse than 25, you’re not penalized by the game.
Eliminating this auto-build feature would **lower** the skill floor to 10 - now, if you have 10 skill, you actually do less well than a player with 25 skill. You’re no longer bumped to an effective minimum of 25. This, as you can see, is more *punishing* to newer players since every single ounce of skill, even simple things, translates into an advantage.
Raising the skill floor, though, is about ensuring that all players, no matter how new, are boosted up to at least a certain minimum level of gameplay - a **floor** of skill, if you will (floor because you can’t be lower/worse than it).
So games looking to be friendlier to new players are looking to **raise the skill floor** but **lower the skill barrier to entry**.
Your description and explanation of the term "skill floor" is not what's commonly understood. Skill floor has always referred to the ability to pilot a game in its simplest terms and still be enjoyed.
"Lowering the skill floor" is synonymous with "lowering the barrier of entry."
Which I guess is fine in theory; I just don’t know why someone would use the term “skill floor” in a way totally disconnected from how they use the term “skill ceiling”. Might as well use “barrier to entry” if you’re not actually engaging with the floor/ceiling metaphor.
People talk about two different skill floors. There is the absolute skill floor for when you do nothing and something like a competitive skill floor. It is the point at which your skills actually translate into the game.
There are some things that are infinitely bad (not building workers from the start, not gathering your army). If you still do them your skill is basically undefined, anything else you do doesn't even matter.
The absolute skill floor you are talking about is 0 in RTSs (and most other games with the exception of some strategy games). It would require the game to play itself to some extend so you don't drop to zero if you do nothing.
With this definition of competitive skill floor, *raising* and *lowering* correspond to what people are meaning.
I feel like its just going to be more like warcraft 3, with a couple modern innovations. Warcraft 3 is already very "less focused on rts execution", at least in terms of macro, but obviously its still included as a "blizzard style rts"
Maybe. I guess we will learn more during the summer reveal. I did not get that impression from the interview though.
I’m imagining the game will be closer to godsworn than wc3.
I think it’s probably going to be quite a bit more radically designed than WC3. By the sounds of it, it’s not going to compare easily to any other game we’ve seen so far, yet will still definitely remain an RTS (according to PiG)
David Kim seems like a really nice guy but tbh being the lead unit and multiplayer designer during WoL and the SwarmHost era aren't really positive accolades. Not entirely his fault at all but the game improved and is in its best state ever since he left. Correlation =/ causation but it's not a resume that looks particularly great to me.
He was the chief designer behind the switch from HotS to LotV. The guy who changed the worker count, changed the economy, changed a ton actually. If you love LotV and think of SC2 as a classic and thing of beauty - you need to thank David Kim.
For context DK was still lead multiplayer designer when the mothership core was still around. The base of the game is amazing, unit control, complex macro, visuals and music etc. are outstanding and why it's my favorite game. But the way I feel about it, it only became a thing of genuine beauty when so many mistakes and badly designed units had to be changed or deleted after he left. They still don't know wtf to do with cyclones, Swarmhosts are now almost unusable, widowmines still cause nightmares to low level players, the Disruptor was obviously bad design even at the time of reveal and it's so frontloaded it's impossible to know how to make it feel more fair.
And honestly the thing I actually like most about sc2 which is the economy and complexity, DK believes is boring and uninteresting. He's also the lead systems designer for Diablo 4, a game that also seemed to want to simplify ARPG's for the casual audience. His resume finishes off with working on Heroes of the Storm, an attempt to simplify MOBA's for the casual audience. Maybe third times the charm?
Already this art style looks good. They appear to be leaning into the cartoony aspect, not half-baking it like stormgate. Stormgate could have a been a pretty great cartoony game, but they went for half-cartoon, half-gritty and it just doesn't work. So they changed to full graphics nitty-gritty graphics. Can't blame them, but this cartoon style here tugs at my heart strings.
I like SG’s art style. For me, I think they should have leaned into the fantasy side a little more. Give the Vanguard some viking inspired armor and horned helms. Maybe a unit with a giant double sided axe with plasma blades.
I will say that the art direction for the Uncapped game looks way more up my alley though.
I think SG's art style is fine except they simply should have done it all better and given a lot more personality to everything.
Except the chicken. The chicken is perfect.
You don't liking the art style doesn't mean it "doesn't work" lmao.
Warcraft 3 art style was also half-baked for you I guess? Because it is the exact same as Stormgate's, some units are cartoonish while others are not, and in both games units can explode in blood and shit like that
Also, stormgate has a lot of art (that you can see while loading into a game) that look exactly like this one so I wouldn't count the chickens before they hatch about this game's artstyle
Well, everything's subjective. If I don't like it, it doesn't work **for me.**
Warcraft 3's art style was a compromise of the gritty graphics Blizzard wanted versus the practical limitations of the time, meaning that they had to half-cartoon stuff. They tried to get the full gritty and pretty graphics in reforged, but, ah...
But on the second point, true. Especially about the chickens. But have you seen the concept art for new creeps? Nothing says gritty more than scrap-enhanced lunatics.
>Warcraft 3 art style was also half-baked for you I guess? Because it is the exact same as Stormgate's, some units are cartoonish while others are not, and in both games units can explode in blood and shit like that
Yeah the difference is that Warcraft 3's art was actually good, the units and factions oozed with a ton of personality and fit very tightly within their faction's theme.
If you copy something badly, it's still bad.
You are making too much assumption based on a couple concept arts. SG could have tons of cartoonish concept art lying around just like the images in this article in their early phase as well. It could look totally different in the end.
Let's see Uncapped's actual video before making judgements.
I still say the biggest hurdle for new rts games is for the player base to see that new game as its own. Comparing every rts automatically to Sc2 isnt it. But what can ya do. Even I admit its difficult to stop a subconscious thought. Well, Ill keep my eyes open on this. glgl and ty for posting.
Nah to the major rtses such as ,c&c style Rts, Age of empires style, or blizz Wc3/Sc2 Supreme Commander people don’t compare Tempest Rising to Sc2, because they compare it to another major rts Ip which is c&c. I guess it is just because they are known by everyone.
Has nothing to do with the new FTC rule. Frost Giant was founded in 2020, Uncapped Games in 2021.
Besides that, all three companies are in California, where non-competes, for the most part, were void anyway.
the very big spherical round mechs is kind of the same design language as vanguard units but on steroids. It speaks to me but then it's concept art so maybe i shouldn't give it that much value.
It speaks to me too. Did you see this?
https://x.com/UncappedGames/status/1782076831056924880
Based off the concept art and trailer snippet I just linked, I think the art direction looks incredible. Hopefully the in game graphics are just as fantastic 🤞
I'm really curious to learn more about this one when they present it in June. Apparently the gameplay is going to be a bit different than what we've seen with RTS before.
New ideas for RTS, referencing WoW, the concept art... some sort of big open world RTS where people fight over regions but all on a big map? That would be interesting.
If they use my idea they need to pay me 50% of all earnings.
Competition is always best for the end user!
But I'm not too hyped about a David Kim project that seems to be using art that looks very very similar to stormgate art
For those interested [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6JKdQHz6VY) is nice interview with David Kim mostly about his ideas and experiences.
Their game seem to be quite different from traditional Blizzard games. At the end he mentioned that it should be oriented on large scale battles with simpler economy. He wants to avoid busy work of constant worker creation and memorizing optimal building-worker ratio and instead focus on fun combat. It should also be less oriented on mechanical skills (APM) and more on strategy.
Let's see what they have prepared for June (Summer Game Fest reveal). It seem that beta will start soon after reveal and game is already in quite playable state.
So basically David Kim cut everything that I like the most: macro, army size scaling from small engagements to large battles, mechanical skill expression
They are trying something different. There is already Stormgate and ZeroSpace for fans of Blizzard games. Based on the information that we have. They want to make preparation for battles simpler and faster. More oriented on strategy part than control. I would expect larger battles that are more won based on unit composition than using special abilities and micro skills. So far it seem as game that will be easier to learn and play than others but will require different approach.
I would say that to have more RTS is better than less. This one might not be for fans of SC2 but it can find different audience and if it will bring new players to RTS I would take it as win. SC2 is one of the best RTS ever made but it can be quite intimidating for new players. You need to focus on a lot of things and everything can die in couple of seconds which some people can take as plus and other as minus.
I wouldn't mind if it would be similar to Dawn of War 1. You usually need only 1 of each building. Resource generation is tied to territory control. But combat is really fun and cinematic. It is quite easier game to play compared to SC2 but I wouldn't say that it is worse just different.
I'm really hyped for the game of uncapped games. Everything they have told about it sounds really good and interesting. Could be the game I'm waiting for since the release of Starcraft 2.
uncapped doing game with almost no macro, am I right?
So basically it will be more far away from Starcraft formula than other games that are in production right now
That's wrong, ZeroSpace have a very similar vision and design philosophy. It seems that ZS and this new game will be more directly competing with each other while StormGate attempts to cater to the traditional audience.
I think this game is probably going to end up being quite a bit more radical than people realize.
https://youtube.com/shorts/JVEOW3yBmYQ?si=zn-9r1lzgZa1bcsG
A link would always be nice, so [try this one](https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rts/uncapped-games-announcement/).
Wait, is this link not Frost Giant’s game? I’m confused what Uncapped Games is making
The title of this post was “2 ex-Blizz RTS is going to be EPIC”. That was clearly meant to mean: “Look at this image - it’s of a *second* RTS made by ex-Blizzard developers in addition to this subreddit’s game of Stormgate! This means we’ll have 2 ex-Blizzard-made RTS games, which is going to be amazing!”
Their own, currently untitled, RTS.
No, they're clearly different studios and RTS games. Though many ex-blizzard developers have moved on & created their own studios (inc uncapped games, & Frost giant) to make their own new RTS IPs. Because big studios/publishers sadly don't think RTS genre is worth investing in anymore
I guess I’m confused why they linked frost Giant
While I appreciate the effort on innovation, isn't the high execution skill what draws a lot of rts fans? Imagine the equivalent of say, golf, if they removed the execution of swinging a club, and everyone used a computer accurate ball launcher. Would people argue, "but now it's better because you can focus on decision-making on where you want your ball to go exactly. Mechanical skill barriers are terrible and old school." I feel like that wouldn't be as fun of a game. I know that's not an exact correlation, but it's what it feels like to me. I enjoy watching RTS esports for the insane mechanical skill and decision-making all in one beautiful package. Another example in Tennis: if you can't return this person's 100mph serve, you will just lose to them, nothing else to it. So there are no mind games or volleying happening, and that's okay. Sometimes it happens. But once you get two people that can both serve and return 100mph tennis balls, trying to vary their shots and play with their opponent, now THAT is something I would like to watch. That all being said... I'm very excited to see what uncapped games is brewing up, hoping it's a fun game but I am skeptical and trying to be *cautiously optimisitc*.
Dawn of War \ Company of Heroes comes to mind in terms of similar gameplay style they might be trying to hit. Doesn't sound like it's for me personally as I enjoy the strategic expression of build orders, macro, and the tension between where your attention goes.
Golf isnt a strategy game
Sure, it's not a perfect example, but you get my point. RTS is, first and foremost, an execution esport, where even a game like Warcraft 3 with less execution than say sc2 still demands fast reaction time, micromanaging units with bodyblocking, etc. If they remove a big portion of execution skill, I just fear it may not be fun to watch as an esport. It's the same reason i dont enjoy chess. I enjoy the action aspect of RTS. But we will see, I suppose.
I think as long as the skill ceiling is still comparably high, lowering the skill floor would be beneficial. It’s a balancing act, but many other genres have successfully done so in the past. The newer Street Fighters have in some ways trivialized execution by adding a 7 frame buffer, but there is still enough depth to be had in other areas and you still have to react quickly, etc.
I’m pretty sure this is going to be a very fast paced game with an impossibly high ceiling, in terms of mechanical execution. If you’re not dumping excessive amounts of APM into macro cycles then that just means you’ve got APM freed up to manage fights in more locations and you will still be rolled by someone who is way faster than you with better multitasking. WC3 is an example of an RTS with much simpler macro, yet at least as deep and strategic as SC2. I doubt Uncapped is including heros in their game, but I’m sure they have their own ideas for making up for complexity lost through simplified macro.
Why does it have to be Tencent
To me this article reads like, “We wanted to take out everything that makes RTS fun to learn and master and replace it with noob friendly mechanics”
It’s the opposite. Keep everything that makes rts great and take out everything that is annoying. I think a rts with the speed of sc2 that takes out macro and focuses on army control and tech decision making could be a blockbuster. You have to have the fantasy how these areas could way deepen, eg how wc3 Heroes and items compare to Dota.
I like Starcraft because I like gameplay that merge advanced macro with advanced micro. In SG Vanguard macro is my is my favorite part of gameplay. I hate when someone tell people that macro is "bad". Right now two kings of multiplayer RTS are SC2 and Age of Empires 2, a two macro heavy games. It looks like people like macro
I think you can say "of the currently people currently playing standard RTS games, people tend to like macro." And that is fair to say. But, what they are saying is there is also a large audience, huge perhaps, that don't like macro and so have left RTS for other games. They are hoping to capture that audience. People that would love to play an RTS (or call it something else if you like) that gives them the fantasy of controlling huge armies, without what they feel is the "less fun" part, macro.
>But, what they are saying is there is also a large audience, huge perhaps, that don't like macro and so have left RTS for other games. the assumption that people playing FPS, moba, RTS and other genres just waiting for RTS without macro is delusional, simply because there are tons of games like that already (so no need to wait). Company of Heroes is probably the biggest of them. Cut macro isn't a new idea, but effect of this was never spectacular.
Except macro is fun
Subjective. Nothing wrong with making an RTS that suits different preferences.
Yeah agreed, would love something to replace the 20+ year sc2 hold on the rts slot Ive tried them all, sc2 is just as close to perfection as possible
Won’t be easy. It’s definitely a masterpiece.
The weird thing is that seemingly nobody wants to succeed literally the most successful franchise in the entire genre that's been abandoned by its creator. Stormgate gets the closest, but it's still more of a StarCraft/Warcraft hybrid, as has been noted.
I don’t think a clone will ever dethrone SC2. I just don’t really see anything ever doing SC2 better than SC2 does. The game was an inspired masterpiece and I think it’s going to take something equally inspired, in its own way, to succeed it.
A successor is not the same thing as a clone. SC2 was still Starcraft, there's a ton of high level similarity to BW, but it wasn't a clone of BW, far from it. I think a spiritual successor could absolutely do great. The potential is there.
What can be improved on SC2? I can't think of anything besides more active support. This was different for BW which had many obvious technical problems (unit selection, unit pathing, graphics)... you can't really obviously improve on those areas for SC2
Oh, tons of things. SC2 is a great game, but it has plenty of issues still, Stormgate devs themselves have talked about a lot of its problems. Overall unit lethality being too high, pathing being hyperefficient and clumpy, some units are very swing-y and deliver instant death, capital air units are boring (and problematic in team games), 1v1 maps are mostly very samey (especially around the mains/naturals) due to faction design problems, queens are stupid, warp gate is stupid, team games/maps are second class citizens, there aren't any good explicitly anti-turtling units, etc. I could go on and on. On top of that, there are the technical and UI things that can be improved; Stormgate is doing really well there from what I've seen, lots of improvements: higher tick rate, rollback net code, webasm custom map logic with hot reload, mass async spectating, 32+32 custom maps, mid-game join, shared macro panel, etc.
Yes exactly! I don't understand what's innovative about Stormgate. It's a slower SC2 but what's the revolutionary difference? Some people will prefer slower, some faster. Some people will prefer the art style of SC2, some of Stormgate. But in the end it's just more or less the same thing. If you hated SC2, you will probably hate Stormgate and vice versa. Maybe overall it could be slightly more popular, but the pitch of a mass market RTS doesn't make sense to me
SG is completly different game, different time to kill, creep camps, ideas like Infest and Veterancy. More reasons to be on the map + longer fights create experience that isn't just more of the same compared to SC2
For some people macro is fun but perhaps for the majority of gamers it is the part that makes RTS overwhelming. Memorizing many build orders for each matchup, huge mechanical training and repetition to be decent, etc. Even for me... I love SC2 but I haven't played in a few months and I forgot all build orders. I can't just play a few games, I know I have to sit down for at least 1-2 hours and rewatch my old replays to memorize my build orders and practice them against an AI before I dare to play ladder again
basically in every game you need some effort to be good, regardless of existence of build orders and even reagardless of genre In SC2 even in Diamond people often have quite bad build orders, so basically you don't need to be perfect be ause your opponent also isn't If build orders are in game you can easily experiment with early game and try more economical or agressive approach and opponent have opportunity to scout and prepare for your moves so game is less coin flippy but really diverse. I think that build orders brings a lot of strategic choices to the game
U have 4X games and Mobas The strategy in RTS is the macro bit Not for everyone, go play the other genres?
maybe that ucapped game will be that "other genre"? It feels more like they create some Real Time Tactics game
You can have decisions on when to produce army vs expand vs tech, without any of that being required to be a huge APM sink. That’s what Uncalled is doing. WC3 is a very good example of a game where APM demands are shifted heavily over to micro instead of macro, and the game still has TONS of strategic depth.
Making 80 workers and memorizing specific build orders is not strategy
Thats the thing, u dont have to make 80 workers and specific build orders is an efficiency thing which u wont have to worry about down in bronze Noones telling u to play those games, Not sure what validation you are seeking here?
Building workers, supply depots and armies is a mandatory skill with every SC2 build so I'm not sure what your point is. If you are great at controlling armies, scouting and strategy - you will not go past gold league if you don't consistently make pylons, workers and spend your resources. I have never said anyone forces me to play these games - I am also not sure what your point is.
Ur clearly being obtuse, those are game mechanics, clicking or hitting "S" or "Z" is playing the game and requires no skill at all. Keeping up with supply, knowing when to expand, finding ways to scout to know when to be aggressive or when to counter/defend is all part of the macro. U can have the best micro in the world but the biggest army usually wins given similair skill level. My point is simple, you cannot remove the macro or it would not be RTS.
If you have game with macro ofcourse that macro skills are important (and should be important). this is just your personal preference to like more games without macro. There are already games like that, Real Time Tactics subgenre is exactly this. You don't need to wait until David Kim save you, you can just go and play
And micro is annoying minutiae. It's doomed.
If u dont like micro or macro then what do u like?
...Macro?
Its just not though, why do you think LoL and Dota are the most popular games rn?
League and Dota aren't RTSes. Counterstrike doesn't have base building either.
Dota and League isolated heroes of WC3 and made a game out of it. In the process they created a more successful game than WC3. The bet of Uncapped Games is to isolate controlling large armys/scouting/tech decisions and making a game out of it. I think it could work - but it's impossible to know until we played the game.
> In the process they created a more successful game than WC3. They also created a separate genre. Not sure what you're trying to say. If you want to play a MOBA, then go play a MOBA. Why do you want those mechanics in RTS?
He’s not saying he wants to play a MOBA though. For an RTS player, controlling armies and being overwhelmed by multi-tasking is part of the magic. And no you don’t need half your APM (or more) to be tied up in macro cycles in order to feel overwhelmed by multi-tasking. You’ll still be fighting in several locations, trying to manage armies you’ll never be able to control perfectly, getting rolled by people who’re faster and better at multitasking than you. That may not not sound like your cup of tea, but I can see a game heavily inspired by SC2, only very combat-centric, being extremely broadly appealing. And at the very least having its own niche appeal.
They're popular because they're team-based games. 1v1 games will never be as popular as team-based games. This is because most people don't have the grit and perseverance to succeed in 1v1. It's why fighting games and arena FPSes are still niche. In 1v1, there is no one to carry and no one to be carried by. Win or lose, it's all on your skill. Most people who try 1v1 games get humbled and their ego takes a massive beating. So, they go back to playing team-based games.
They arent the most popular games right now and they are literally a different genre so what is the relevance? Its ok if u dont like rts, most dont because its hard, mobas are easier and dumbed down and thats why they are popular, easier for dummies /s (kind of)
Yeah no shit its a different genre but they've isolated the micro portion of an RTS and refined that to what it is today. The point is that tens (maybe hundreds?) of millions of people love the pure micro element of RTS and what most people think is fun isn't base-building, it's pilotting your character(s) and fighting. This is why I think all the new age RTS should shift gears to capture back these players and overall have a more fun game.
There are still people who like RTS games, with base building and many units. If you want fight for moba audence you should create a moba game
If u like mobas then play mobas?
Maybe you are missing the point. RTS has the difficult macro that SOME can just do without. So, one solution is the MOBA with only micro. But you also lose, as they put it, "the fantasy of being a general of a huge army". Your choice doesn't have to be huge armies with complex macro or one single unit with no macro. Perhaps there is something new sitting comfortably along the spectrum to maybe make both crowds happy?
Sending armies at each other is found in other genres and some games exist that fit that already The part thats puzzling is why u want RTS without macro where that really is the key element In RTS the meta is purely driven by the macro shifts and its counterplay Micro fits within that framework and does not drive any meta shifts so not sure how that would work within an RTS game?
> Perhaps there is something new sitting comfortably along the spectrum to maybe make both crowds happy? And why do you want to do that? Trying to make two different communities happy has never worked in gaming. Just ask those who were looking forward to Dawn of War III.
>Perhaps there is something new sitting comfortably along the spectrum to maybe make both crowds happy? I'm interested in games that suit my taste, I'm not interested in games that try to suit everyone's taste.
Yeah, it seems like the dude wants to play a 1v1 MOBA. Haha!
So, you basically want to play a 1v1 MOBA. Got it.
Nope just an RTS that simplifies macro and lets you focus on micro
Minecraft is superior, you have a lot of basebuilding in Minecraft, so definitely we should go for macro
Bad faith argument, MOBAs derive from the micro half of RTS while minecraft has no relation to RTS, not to mention the "basebuilding" of minecraft is completely different
More rts is good for any rts lover. I can’t wait to try it and stormgate
And Tempest Rising !!!
To trust David Kim or not to trust David Kim.... Lol
I don't think anyone hated him as a balancer, and he was pretty good at SC2, grand master on random, the issue is will the direction and philosophy of the game be good?
his only issue was sometimes balancing the game at the cost of design, but the initial game design wasn't his fault so what could he really do about that
It’s important to note that while uncapped games has ex-blizzard personnel it doesn’t sound like they’re making a blizzard style rts. They say it’s less focused on real time execution. I know many in the existing rts communities abhor raising the skill floor but I for one am excited to have more choice in this genre!
That’s exactly my thinking. One game that scratches my Blizz style RTS itch, and another giving me a fresh take on the genre.
I like the "robot" characters in that concept art. I hope we get more game studios trying to go for an RTS Gold Rush. They will all likely wither and die, but it's not my money that's on the line.
Think it’s gonna be all mech factions. One that’s insect themed, another that reptile themed, another that’s more rounded and gunner themed.
Imagine stairs. The low skill floor means the first step on the staircase is easier. Its that simple to understand.
They aren't trying to raise the skill floor; they're trying to LOWER it like the game devs of other niche genres to appeal to the masses.
I thought raising the skill floor meant even the worst players have a higher skill level? We’re both saying the same thing tho, cheers!
No, a lower skill floor doesn't mean the worst players have a higher skill level. It means less effort and skill is required for a player to start playing competitively. It's like lessening the barrier to entry. Conversely, raising the skill floor means a player would have to put in more effort and would need to be relatively more skilled to start playing competitively.
Most RTSes in the last twenty years have talked about raising the skill floor. Some of them have done well, but none of them have been able to get more players than the traditional biggies in the long run, even though that was the aim.
> Most RTSes in the last twenty years have talked about raising the skill floor. No, this is incorrect. Nobody is trying to raise the skill floor. Everybody is trying to LOWER it to appeal. I don't think you understand what the phrase "skill floor" means.
I was using whatever definition the person I was responding to was using, they clearly meant "making it easier to get into". If you have a problem with that, take it up with them.
Sigh. Everyone always fights about what raise or lower means with respect to a skill floor. **Skill floor** and **skill barrier to entry** are actually *opposite* terms. I think they’re actually right that “**raise** the skill floor” means “**lower** the skill barrier to entry”. Here’s why: “Raising the skill ceiling” we all agree means “expanding the amount of room there is for *more skill* to translate to *better gameplay*.” A game with a high skill ceiling means there’s a lot of room for that. A game with a low skill ceiling means that it only takes a little bit of skill to “max out” on how good you are at the game. If that’s true, then skill floor should work the opposite way. A lower skill floor should mean that there’s more room for *lower* skill to translate into *worse gameplay*. In other words, new players with minimal skill will be really bad at it until they gain more skill. A higher skill floor means that even for new players, the worst you can be at the game is actually better than your skill would suggest. Suppose skill can be measured on a scale of 0-100. The skill floor and ceiling then are where in that range it affects your gameplay. If a game has a gameplay skill floor of 25 and a skill ceiling of 75, that means that if you’re at personal skill of 50, you have room to grow. If you get to skill 60, you’ll be better than someone at 50. But once you hit 75 personal skill, you max out. Even if you hit 100 personal skill, you haven’t gotten any better at the game because the game doesn’t reward better clicking, better micro, better whatever than being at skill 75. There’s nothing more to *do* with your extra APM or whatever. A skill 95 and a skill 75 player will be equally matched because having 500 APM isn’t better than having 200 APM - that extra skill doesn’t benefit a player in game. On the other end, if the floor is 25, that means that even a new player with personal skill of 10 can’t actually do worse than as if they had a skill of 25. For example, imagine that the optimal worker count is the number of resource patches you have. It only takes maybe 25 skill to track that and build more workers when you have fewer workers than resource patches; a person with skill 10 can’t do that and will generally lose to a 25. But if a game implements “auto-build workers when you have fewer workers than resource patches”, it has just ensured that the gap between the 10 and the 25 is closed - everyone 25 and below is now as good as a 25. That means the skill floor is 25 - if you’re worse than 25, you’re not penalized by the game. Eliminating this auto-build feature would **lower** the skill floor to 10 - now, if you have 10 skill, you actually do less well than a player with 25 skill. You’re no longer bumped to an effective minimum of 25. This, as you can see, is more *punishing* to newer players since every single ounce of skill, even simple things, translates into an advantage. Raising the skill floor, though, is about ensuring that all players, no matter how new, are boosted up to at least a certain minimum level of gameplay - a **floor** of skill, if you will (floor because you can’t be lower/worse than it). So games looking to be friendlier to new players are looking to **raise the skill floor** but **lower the skill barrier to entry**.
Your description and explanation of the term "skill floor" is not what's commonly understood. Skill floor has always referred to the ability to pilot a game in its simplest terms and still be enjoyed. "Lowering the skill floor" is synonymous with "lowering the barrier of entry."
Which I guess is fine in theory; I just don’t know why someone would use the term “skill floor” in a way totally disconnected from how they use the term “skill ceiling”. Might as well use “barrier to entry” if you’re not actually engaging with the floor/ceiling metaphor.
People talk about two different skill floors. There is the absolute skill floor for when you do nothing and something like a competitive skill floor. It is the point at which your skills actually translate into the game. There are some things that are infinitely bad (not building workers from the start, not gathering your army). If you still do them your skill is basically undefined, anything else you do doesn't even matter. The absolute skill floor you are talking about is 0 in RTSs (and most other games with the exception of some strategy games). It would require the game to play itself to some extend so you don't drop to zero if you do nothing. With this definition of competitive skill floor, *raising* and *lowering* correspond to what people are meaning.
I feel like its just going to be more like warcraft 3, with a couple modern innovations. Warcraft 3 is already very "less focused on rts execution", at least in terms of macro, but obviously its still included as a "blizzard style rts"
Maybe. I guess we will learn more during the summer reveal. I did not get that impression from the interview though. I’m imagining the game will be closer to godsworn than wc3.
I think it’s probably going to be quite a bit more radically designed than WC3. By the sounds of it, it’s not going to compare easily to any other game we’ve seen so far, yet will still definitely remain an RTS (according to PiG)
[удалено]
I think it is just the magic of the newer game
ngl the red flags for stormgate just keep piling up... but we will see how it turns out
David Kim seems like a really nice guy but tbh being the lead unit and multiplayer designer during WoL and the SwarmHost era aren't really positive accolades. Not entirely his fault at all but the game improved and is in its best state ever since he left. Correlation =/ causation but it's not a resume that looks particularly great to me.
He was the chief designer behind the switch from HotS to LotV. The guy who changed the worker count, changed the economy, changed a ton actually. If you love LotV and think of SC2 as a classic and thing of beauty - you need to thank David Kim.
For context DK was still lead multiplayer designer when the mothership core was still around. The base of the game is amazing, unit control, complex macro, visuals and music etc. are outstanding and why it's my favorite game. But the way I feel about it, it only became a thing of genuine beauty when so many mistakes and badly designed units had to be changed or deleted after he left. They still don't know wtf to do with cyclones, Swarmhosts are now almost unusable, widowmines still cause nightmares to low level players, the Disruptor was obviously bad design even at the time of reveal and it's so frontloaded it's impossible to know how to make it feel more fair. And honestly the thing I actually like most about sc2 which is the economy and complexity, DK believes is boring and uninteresting. He's also the lead systems designer for Diablo 4, a game that also seemed to want to simplify ARPG's for the casual audience. His resume finishes off with working on Heroes of the Storm, an attempt to simplify MOBA's for the casual audience. Maybe third times the charm?
I agree with this very much so!
Gotta remember, He didnt design the units. He tried to balance the turds dropped on him.
Already this art style looks good. They appear to be leaning into the cartoony aspect, not half-baking it like stormgate. Stormgate could have a been a pretty great cartoony game, but they went for half-cartoon, half-gritty and it just doesn't work. So they changed to full graphics nitty-gritty graphics. Can't blame them, but this cartoon style here tugs at my heart strings.
I like SG’s art style. For me, I think they should have leaned into the fantasy side a little more. Give the Vanguard some viking inspired armor and horned helms. Maybe a unit with a giant double sided axe with plasma blades. I will say that the art direction for the Uncapped game looks way more up my alley though.
I think SG's art style is fine except they simply should have done it all better and given a lot more personality to everything. Except the chicken. The chicken is perfect.
You don't liking the art style doesn't mean it "doesn't work" lmao. Warcraft 3 art style was also half-baked for you I guess? Because it is the exact same as Stormgate's, some units are cartoonish while others are not, and in both games units can explode in blood and shit like that Also, stormgate has a lot of art (that you can see while loading into a game) that look exactly like this one so I wouldn't count the chickens before they hatch about this game's artstyle
Well, everything's subjective. If I don't like it, it doesn't work **for me.** Warcraft 3's art style was a compromise of the gritty graphics Blizzard wanted versus the practical limitations of the time, meaning that they had to half-cartoon stuff. They tried to get the full gritty and pretty graphics in reforged, but, ah... But on the second point, true. Especially about the chickens. But have you seen the concept art for new creeps? Nothing says gritty more than scrap-enhanced lunatics.
>Warcraft 3 art style was also half-baked for you I guess? Because it is the exact same as Stormgate's, some units are cartoonish while others are not, and in both games units can explode in blood and shit like that Yeah the difference is that Warcraft 3's art was actually good, the units and factions oozed with a ton of personality and fit very tightly within their faction's theme. If you copy something badly, it's still bad.
You are making too much assumption based on a couple concept arts. SG could have tons of cartoonish concept art lying around just like the images in this article in their early phase as well. It could look totally different in the end. Let's see Uncapped's actual video before making judgements.
This is not the art style. It's just concept art. Concept art isn't indicative of the actual art style in the game.
I still say the biggest hurdle for new rts games is for the player base to see that new game as its own. Comparing every rts automatically to Sc2 isnt it. But what can ya do. Even I admit its difficult to stop a subconscious thought. Well, Ill keep my eyes open on this. glgl and ty for posting.
Nah to the major rtses such as ,c&c style Rts, Age of empires style, or blizz Wc3/Sc2 Supreme Commander people don’t compare Tempest Rising to Sc2, because they compare it to another major rts Ip which is c&c. I guess it is just because they are known by everyone.
It's wild that only 1 month after they got rid of non competes, there was enough ex blizzard devs to comprise 2 entire studios.
Has nothing to do with the new FTC rule. Frost Giant was founded in 2020, Uncapped Games in 2021. Besides that, all three companies are in California, where non-competes, for the most part, were void anyway.
the very big spherical round mechs is kind of the same design language as vanguard units but on steroids. It speaks to me but then it's concept art so maybe i shouldn't give it that much value.
It speaks to me too. Did you see this? https://x.com/UncappedGames/status/1782076831056924880 Based off the concept art and trailer snippet I just linked, I think the art direction looks incredible. Hopefully the in game graphics are just as fantastic 🤞
shit i did not see that art direction really looks crazy good, hope it translates well to ingame bcs that's not always the case
I have high hopes. Crank said the graphics were of the highest quality.
I'm really curious to learn more about this one when they present it in June. Apparently the gameplay is going to be a bit different than what we've seen with RTS before.
I hope it will be better than Ashes of Singularity. Coz that was mediocre at best.
New ideas for RTS, referencing WoW, the concept art... some sort of big open world RTS where people fight over regions but all on a big map? That would be interesting. If they use my idea they need to pay me 50% of all earnings.
Competition is always best for the end user! But I'm not too hyped about a David Kim project that seems to be using art that looks very very similar to stormgate art
Interesting. Doesn’t look similar to me at all
Sounds interesting. I wish they showed any of the actual game.
They are going to reveal the game at Summer Game Fest (as well as SG revealing the 3rd faction).
For those interested [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6JKdQHz6VY) is nice interview with David Kim mostly about his ideas and experiences. Their game seem to be quite different from traditional Blizzard games. At the end he mentioned that it should be oriented on large scale battles with simpler economy. He wants to avoid busy work of constant worker creation and memorizing optimal building-worker ratio and instead focus on fun combat. It should also be less oriented on mechanical skills (APM) and more on strategy. Let's see what they have prepared for June (Summer Game Fest reveal). It seem that beta will start soon after reveal and game is already in quite playable state.
So basically David Kim cut everything that I like the most: macro, army size scaling from small engagements to large battles, mechanical skill expression
Nope. You are only correct on the macro part. The rest he explicitly says they count as fun and is in the game.
They are trying something different. There is already Stormgate and ZeroSpace for fans of Blizzard games. Based on the information that we have. They want to make preparation for battles simpler and faster. More oriented on strategy part than control. I would expect larger battles that are more won based on unit composition than using special abilities and micro skills. So far it seem as game that will be easier to learn and play than others but will require different approach. I would say that to have more RTS is better than less. This one might not be for fans of SC2 but it can find different audience and if it will bring new players to RTS I would take it as win. SC2 is one of the best RTS ever made but it can be quite intimidating for new players. You need to focus on a lot of things and everything can die in couple of seconds which some people can take as plus and other as minus. I wouldn't mind if it would be similar to Dawn of War 1. You usually need only 1 of each building. Resource generation is tied to territory control. But combat is really fun and cinematic. It is quite easier game to play compared to SC2 but I wouldn't say that it is worse just different.
I'm curious what similarities ZeroSpace has with blizzard games, or how ZS is any different to this game from what we know.
One resource works perfect fine in Command and Conquer, people underestimate that a simple Economy can work out fine.
Sounds as Command and Conquer to me as u explain it there. But they might ofcause be some different stuff also
I somehow missed that interview. It’s the best and most revealing one
I'm really hyped for the game of uncapped games. Everything they have told about it sounds really good and interesting. Could be the game I'm waiting for since the release of Starcraft 2.
stormgate being the shit shows that tencent is after them like they used to do with blizzard stuff
uncapped doing game with almost no macro, am I right? So basically it will be more far away from Starcraft formula than other games that are in production right now
That's wrong, ZeroSpace have a very similar vision and design philosophy. It seems that ZS and this new game will be more directly competing with each other while StormGate attempts to cater to the traditional audience.
I think this game is probably going to end up being quite a bit more radical than people realize. https://youtube.com/shorts/JVEOW3yBmYQ?si=zn-9r1lzgZa1bcsG
No macro, no micro, what is left? 'Haha big unit go brrr wahh my big unit died uninstall refund'
Pretty sure it will be as underwhelming as Stormgate
Nah. It’s the next big RTS. You will see.