Reforming the RTS genre

[anonymous_user_9257d68e]

@ZacD

I personally believe that the StarCraft model is the ideal for RTS if you want strategic depth. Unit choice matters, scouting matters, adjusting to your opponent matters, balancing unit composition matters, balancing micro and macro matters, knowing the matchup matters, knowing upgrades and timings matters. The pace of the makes the choices that more important. No choices feel meaningless or superficial, a good player can easily know why they lost.

Of course StarCraft isn’t perfect, there’s balancing issues that come and go, and making sure the meta and each matchup is interesting requires tweaking. Some of the cooler units and tech don’t get a lot of use in high level play, but that does generate extra hype when it does happen. ​​​It’s hard to say what exactly killed it as an esport, but it’s still a great RTS either way, and had a great run.

Some RTS fail balancing out player freedom and meaningful choices. Don’t give me options that won’t ever impact the outcome of a game. Also don’t take away choices and freedom without making it meaningful.

Some of the more interesting strategy games I’ve seen lately focus on either giving the combat more depth, or giving more depth to the economy.

Starcraft is the worst case scenario of a RTS known as MRTS(MICRO RTS) it has nothing of immersion or strategic warfae only simple Stone Scissor Stone Paper mechanics there you shooting the energy bar down in which units are hewn at each other. No hit feedback no hitzones an a minimalized sub basese building. i think in 1998 starcraft was really impressive but would not have needed a follower that does not evolve these great mechnics in a more immersive way. Starcrat is a Blizzard child and especially developed for compettitive E-Sport play.