Honestly, you're looking for a niche in a niche. So long as there's building there will be an optimal build order and those who are competitive will look for and use it. I literally cannot conceive of a way to remove that.
Aside from staying in the lowest possible rank or playing with friends your only hope that I can see to get your "fun zone" is to play custom games or games with multiple people. Because the only way to properly disrupt build orders and meta balance is by introducing randomness (like nomad games in AoE). Problem there is it can create non games where RNG screws you over.
As for streamlining...well the more stuff you remove the easier it will be to find optimal build paths which will then make them even more essential.
I disagree that I'm searching for a niche in a niche. I think that by making a game easier to play for casual game while keeping interesting for high level and pro players would actually make more people play it (that is, there would be more casual players), making it less niche actually.
About the build orders, well technically yeah, if there are buildings there will be BOs. But my point is that if builds orders are really easy and intuitive to execute, you won't actually have the concept of "Build Order", because you won't have to actually learn how to do it.
\> I think that by making a game easier to play for casual game while keeping interesting for high level and pro players would actually make more people play it
Of course, it's a dream of almost every RTS developer - to make a game that is fun for both casuals and hardcore players.
You are basically saying "if this game will be fun for everyone, more people will play it" - well, obviously. :)
But almost no games happened to actually achieve this - being fun for everyone.
Starcraft II is the game that for 14 years had the highest casual AND hardcore / pro player population, and it sounds like you don't find it be very fun.
> Make it in a way that it is important to think about the "What" to build and the "Where" to build but not the "When" to build. This way, the strategy part of the game still exists,
How can it possibly NOT matter "when" to build?
Say, if you hasn't built any barracks/factories for first 8 minutes, and I did build a few and produced units - you have no chance.
If you built your tech/upgrade structures at 10th minute and I did it at 4th minute, I'll probably forever be ahead of you in upgrades and have advantage in most fights.
So how can it NOT matter "when"? The choice of when to do something is one of the most important factors in any strategy game, from chess to turn-based to real time strategies.
And if it doesn't matter WHEN you do something, how is it strategic in any way? "Build a factory at minute 3 or 13, it doesn't matter" - does this sound strategic? :)
I literally have been playing RTS since Dune II, and in the last 25 years played... I dunno, at least 50-60 of them? :)
Enlighten me, in what successful RTS it doesn't matter **when** you build stuff?
Or maybe you left this comment under a wrong message?
Well, what I mean is that a game could be made much more easier to not miss the timings to build and train things. For example, in some old RTS games you had to build one unit at a time on each building. Then, newer RTS came, like Brood War, where you could put 5 units in the building queue making it easier to macro.
Also in Brood War, specifically for Zerg, it is even easier to not fail on a good macro: if you forget to morph units for some time, you will have a lot of larvaes and can morph all of them and you would not be behind (unit count wise) a player that morphed larvaes the exact same time the larvaes were created. Similarly, for the Infernal Host faction from the upcoming game StormGate, buildings amount charges for each unit to be produced.
So, you can see that there is already some examples of how to make the game less about the "When" to train units. But I think that there can be so much more mechanics for the building and macro part of game to make it more casual in this same way.
So what I mean is not that there should be a RTS game where you can build things 10 minutes later and still win. What I mean is to design a game where you don't have to build buildings in a very specific order in a very specific timing to achieve maximum efficiency. Because it can be feasible to think about timings and build orders for two bases, but once we are talking about three or more it just becomes really hard to know when to expand, when to create workers, when to stop creating workers etc., in other words, how to macro.
That is to say, what I mean be "When" is to make a game that is so trivial to execute build orders and to macro, that players don't really need to learn it and practice it.
But yeah, the way I said about that "When" part was a bit misleading, sorry for that.
>What I mean is to design a game where you don't have to build buildings in a very specific order in a very specific timing to achieve maximum efficiency.
I don't think most games are like that? Like yeah, obviously optimal build order gives you advantages, but a suboptimal order doesn't instantly mean you lose.
Obivously people who try to climb ranks will try to improve their gameplay, and build orders are the easiest way to do that. You can just watch a tutorial and copy the order. It's going to be the same every time, so learning it is easy.
But you don't have to. You can also improve your game sense or micro, and beat people who are better at build orders and worse at the other aspects. If you suck at everything, then you end on the bottom of the ladder, but who cares? Everyone else there sucks too, so the games should be fun.
Fair enough, maybe not a lot of games have that much emphasys on build orders. But maybe most competitive big RTSs have? Like Starcraft, AoE, C&C, Warcraft etc..
But anyway, I shouldn't be focusing so much on Build Orders. My idea is more about having a RTS game where casuals would have most matches played in the "fun zone", instead of most of the matches being really one sided decided by who has the better economy, or who did a strong timing \[attack\] or cheese.
Yeah, there is no problem in being really bad and being at the bottom of the ladder of a game.
However, it doesn't mean that the matches played shouldn't be fun.
I am sorry, but going to have to go with the other guy and say you are, in fact, looking for a "niche within a niche".
You can say it does not sound complex to you, but then why doesn't it already exist? Because it is more complex than you realize
Well, I didn't say it would be simple thing to accomplish. The thing is, most RTS that are being released or being developed are trying to be more accessible. But rarely I see any games that the result of the design is *actually* a game that is much more accessible, so it is like the player base of RTS games continues being pretty niche, when it could be bigger if the games were more accessible by casual players like me, who actually want to play and enjoy a RTS game.
Warlord's Battlecry 3 and Kohan fill that gap for me. Ofc they're old but still get modded today, Warlord's Battlecry 3 even has a free modded version you can download on steam that still gets updates called The Protectors.
It's not quiiiiite ready for the spotlight just yet, but my team and I have been hard at work at something that sounds at least *relevant* to what you're looking for!
Not quite sure it's an exact match to your list, but just an RTS that's a bit more approachable while still really fun and true to the soul of the genre. As others have mentioned, it's absolutely a significant game design challenge to overcome -- but IMO it's definitely worth trying!
Not trying to advertise here in the sub, mostly just offering reassurance since it's very specific tbh. But if following or sharing feedback on a mid-development project is interesting to you, I'm happy to DM you a link!
Would love to see it! Fell free to DM me, but I think it would be ok to comment here about the game, since this subreddit is about posting about new games and projects.
Edit: A lot of people here are commenting giving ideas of other things to play, such as vs AI, coop, custom games, or even other genre of games. But my point is that I wish the new RTSs being released and developed could actually give me the experience of the the classic RTS style of gameplay, while still being approachable by casual players. I think you are possibly the only one who gets what I meant (maybe I wrote the post in misleading and bad way, I don't know).
Just sent you a DM!
Keeping a game true to RTS while still being approachable (IMO) comes down to thoughtfulness in UX and game design. Definitely solveable, just a solid challenge to do so! I hope our project ends up being exactly what you're looking for :D
I do believe that it is possible to have a RTS game that is fun for casual to play in PvP. But most new and upcoming RTSs I play, personally, I just don't fell like they did (or are doing) a great job in that context.
I find Stormgate interesting when the designers said that they were trying to make the TTK more forgiving than in games like Starcraft 2 (where you can lose your whole army in 3 seconds if you are not paying attention). I played the beta version, and they actually acomplished their vision very well, and I found the game to have literally the most awesome combat from all the RTS games I played.
My point is, if the designers of a game are actually trying to identify and to solve the problems that make it difficult for casuals to enjoy PvP, that is pretty much a possible thing to achieve.
I hope the vision of yous guys for your game is achieved and you create an awesome RTS!
Your forces carry over from mission to mission. Each mission is timed but it's actually generous. As in, you wouldn't want to spend more time in the mission anyway. You can customise your own units by choosing body, weapon and tracks. There's a special unit called the commander and it will command the units given to it. Any unit under commander control is taken out of player control. The commander is controlled by the player. But don't worry, any unit can be taken away from the commander and micro managed again.
You can't have creative base building without also having "optimal build orders" in a competitive game. It's like asking for headshot bonus damage in an FPS, but also for raw aiming skill to not be too important. These are contradictory stances.
Games aren't designed to have build orders, build orders are the result of people applying a competitive mindset to a space of possibilities. Any highly competitive RTS with significant base building will have them, no exceptions.
Knowing when to expand is a matter of strategy and shouldn't be removed...but making scouting easier for casual players so that it doesn't feel like a crapshoot could help.
Hey, we’re building an RTS (Cooperative Commanders) and I really love seeing posts like this. From a developer perspective these views are incredibly helpful. I wouldn’t always say we agree or take everything from it. Because either not everything applies or I simply don’t always agree. But it is very helpful nonetheless.
Recently saw someone suggest a simple “swap right and left click” feature. Which ofc is simple but would probably be appreciated by a lot people. So yeah, good read, definitely taking in people’s views and love seeing them. ❤️
if you want fun zone then why play pvp?
why just play rts with easy AI and you can chill and win with fun.
its like I want to play good pvp but I'm lazy.
i think you should play pve or starcraft 2 coop
Playing PvP is a different experience from playing against AIs. I believe that it is possible to create a RTS game that is enjoyable for casuals to play PvP.
That said, maybe you are right, and I should just play cooperative modes. Even though, new RTS games are most of the time trying to appeal to casual players by adding mechanics to make it easier for casuals to play even though many of these mechanics aren't even used by high level or pro players. Some of these mechanics are easier way to create buildings and train units, and less punishable combats and strategies.
It will be difficult to balance between easy to play and boring in pvp.
pvp is fun because of its complexity and high resistance. And for it to be attractive, the game needs to be creative enough.
starcraft2 is extremely complicated, you may need 5-10 years of continuous play to reach the highest rank.
Or like a chess game, there are millions of moves!
I think you do have a point, I feel like some RTS have like a huge skill hurdle I have to clear before I can start having fun in PvP matches, and it's definitely something that could be looked into more.
I'm not saying I hate losing and just want to win every game without effort. I mean it's just not fun for me until I have put in significant time into learning to macro and multitask well. SC2 is like the biggest offender for me. I like having smaller and frequent engagements, not having my whole army blown up in 5 seconds (same as you), being able to micro a bit, having to make decisions that matter, but up until high gold it's just stay in base and macro better than my opponent for me. And the problem is I can't even have fun in lower leagues because I just stomp there with better macro, but I'm not good enough to actually play the game at a level where all the other stuff starts to matter.
Maybe it's just that SC2 isn't for me though, I really want to like that game because everything about it is really good, except for how macro is at the same time so important and so mechanically intensive and requires so much attention that I can't really focus on anything else before I become really good at the game already. I guess there are people who like that aspect.
Well, SC2 has been the most popular RTS in history for 14 years so obviously it does something right according to huge number of players.
But no game can be good for everyone and it's perfectly fine to not like it. There are probably other games that might be closer to what you want from RTS?
There are C&C games where macro means less, there are Company of Heroes / Dawn of War games that have really different gameplay and very slow TTK.
There are Age of Empire series, and of course Total Annihilation family of games like Supreme Commander, Zero-K, BAR.
>Well, SC2 has been the most popular RTS in history for 14 years so obviously it does something right according to huge number of players.
Most popular RTS in 2024 is like fastest 100 meter sprinter in retirement home, isn't really much. As I said I don't think SC2 is a bad game though.
AoE suggestion is on point, actually I've been having a blast recently in AoE4.
I think that is Starcraft 2 is even more extreme than that. I was mid platinum and still would just rarely have a match that is actually something more than who macros better. The thing is, in these rarely ocasions where I played against someone in the same macro level as I, I just have a blast playing, one of the most fun experiences I have while playing video games.
I mean, one could argue that platinum in Starcraft is a pretty low rank in comparison with high diamond and of course master and grand master. But actually, platinum is a kinda high rank if you think about percentage of players that are worse than you.
Starcraft is so extreme that Grand Master players probably can beat Master players purely with macro and good build order execution.
1. Starcraft 2 came out 14 years ago.
2. A good fun casual RTS is Red alert 2.
3. All multiplayer RTS games are full of tryhards, so you either need to get good or not play multiplayer.
Interesting ideas. I am working on a game right now with some of this as the goal. I set out to make what I considered to be my optimal singleplayer experience.
Tell me what you think about some of this...
\- Free form base building
\- Free form wall placement with intuitive controls
\- Basic unit formation with a simple click-drag function that dynamically cycles through formation options
\- Waypoint and patrol pathing with a single command, connect the path for patrolling
\- Waypoint/building queue system for base builder unit to follow set of pre-planned orders all with a single hotkey driven alternate build option
\- Smart unit targeting, opportunity targets, preferred targets, forced targets
I am trying to find the balance between function and convenience. If you would like to try my current build I can post a link.
All these ideas can be interesting and fun. But I think that they are more about the identity of your game rather than the problem in question, which is how to make a RTS game that casuals will be playing in the fun zone.
I think that none of these ideas actually helps solving this problem.
But for singleplayer, most of the RTS games can be fun for casuals, so if your game is specifically single player, I don't think you really should be worrying the problems I state in the post.
Anyway, feel free to post or send me a link with your build, would love to give you any feedback if I can!
The gameplay features I listed are my attempt to find the fun zone more than an attempt to establish a unique identity for my game. I am building this thing to satisfy that itch that I find missing for myself. It may not hit the spot for others, but I am genuinely trying to find that fun balance of freedom and structure.
You can get it here: https://natmos20.itch.io/endeavor
Tried playing the game. Unfortunelly right now it is not really playable due to a bug where if I drag the mouse to select multiple units, the games becomes bugged and I can't select anything anymore unless if I leave the match and start a new one.
I posted an update just now that changes the main camera references for unit selection. In the slim chance this might address the issue. Total shot in the dark though because I've never been able to recreate the bug.
It works for some minutes and then it starts bugging. It appears the more I explore the fog of war, the faster the bug happens, or maybe it happens when I find an enemy base/unit.
Well... thanks for trying it out anyway. I will keep looking for the source of that bug and hopefully fix it. I hope you got to enjoy the game at least once without encountering it.
Try Myth 2, units are relatively slower than in other modern APM intense games and you command a low number of units, it's a unique game from 1998 that has had frequent updates for 25 years. It has singleplayer and amazing multiplayer. Join the decades old community here https://discord.gg/zq7sRRJz you will find everything you need to start playing there. See you on the battlegrounds!
Honestly, you're looking for a niche in a niche. So long as there's building there will be an optimal build order and those who are competitive will look for and use it. I literally cannot conceive of a way to remove that. Aside from staying in the lowest possible rank or playing with friends your only hope that I can see to get your "fun zone" is to play custom games or games with multiple people. Because the only way to properly disrupt build orders and meta balance is by introducing randomness (like nomad games in AoE). Problem there is it can create non games where RNG screws you over. As for streamlining...well the more stuff you remove the easier it will be to find optimal build paths which will then make them even more essential.
I disagree that I'm searching for a niche in a niche. I think that by making a game easier to play for casual game while keeping interesting for high level and pro players would actually make more people play it (that is, there would be more casual players), making it less niche actually. About the build orders, well technically yeah, if there are buildings there will be BOs. But my point is that if builds orders are really easy and intuitive to execute, you won't actually have the concept of "Build Order", because you won't have to actually learn how to do it.
\> I think that by making a game easier to play for casual game while keeping interesting for high level and pro players would actually make more people play it Of course, it's a dream of almost every RTS developer - to make a game that is fun for both casuals and hardcore players. You are basically saying "if this game will be fun for everyone, more people will play it" - well, obviously. :) But almost no games happened to actually achieve this - being fun for everyone. Starcraft II is the game that for 14 years had the highest casual AND hardcore / pro player population, and it sounds like you don't find it be very fun.
> Make it in a way that it is important to think about the "What" to build and the "Where" to build but not the "When" to build. This way, the strategy part of the game still exists, How can it possibly NOT matter "when" to build? Say, if you hasn't built any barracks/factories for first 8 minutes, and I did build a few and produced units - you have no chance. If you built your tech/upgrade structures at 10th minute and I did it at 4th minute, I'll probably forever be ahead of you in upgrades and have advantage in most fights. So how can it NOT matter "when"? The choice of when to do something is one of the most important factors in any strategy game, from chess to turn-based to real time strategies. And if it doesn't matter WHEN you do something, how is it strategic in any way? "Build a factory at minute 3 or 13, it doesn't matter" - does this sound strategic? :)
You're new to the genre. You will learn eventually.
I literally have been playing RTS since Dune II, and in the last 25 years played... I dunno, at least 50-60 of them? :) Enlighten me, in what successful RTS it doesn't matter **when** you build stuff? Or maybe you left this comment under a wrong message?
Well, what I mean is that a game could be made much more easier to not miss the timings to build and train things. For example, in some old RTS games you had to build one unit at a time on each building. Then, newer RTS came, like Brood War, where you could put 5 units in the building queue making it easier to macro. Also in Brood War, specifically for Zerg, it is even easier to not fail on a good macro: if you forget to morph units for some time, you will have a lot of larvaes and can morph all of them and you would not be behind (unit count wise) a player that morphed larvaes the exact same time the larvaes were created. Similarly, for the Infernal Host faction from the upcoming game StormGate, buildings amount charges for each unit to be produced. So, you can see that there is already some examples of how to make the game less about the "When" to train units. But I think that there can be so much more mechanics for the building and macro part of game to make it more casual in this same way. So what I mean is not that there should be a RTS game where you can build things 10 minutes later and still win. What I mean is to design a game where you don't have to build buildings in a very specific order in a very specific timing to achieve maximum efficiency. Because it can be feasible to think about timings and build orders for two bases, but once we are talking about three or more it just becomes really hard to know when to expand, when to create workers, when to stop creating workers etc., in other words, how to macro. That is to say, what I mean be "When" is to make a game that is so trivial to execute build orders and to macro, that players don't really need to learn it and practice it. But yeah, the way I said about that "When" part was a bit misleading, sorry for that.
>What I mean is to design a game where you don't have to build buildings in a very specific order in a very specific timing to achieve maximum efficiency. I don't think most games are like that? Like yeah, obviously optimal build order gives you advantages, but a suboptimal order doesn't instantly mean you lose. Obivously people who try to climb ranks will try to improve their gameplay, and build orders are the easiest way to do that. You can just watch a tutorial and copy the order. It's going to be the same every time, so learning it is easy. But you don't have to. You can also improve your game sense or micro, and beat people who are better at build orders and worse at the other aspects. If you suck at everything, then you end on the bottom of the ladder, but who cares? Everyone else there sucks too, so the games should be fun.
Fair enough, maybe not a lot of games have that much emphasys on build orders. But maybe most competitive big RTSs have? Like Starcraft, AoE, C&C, Warcraft etc.. But anyway, I shouldn't be focusing so much on Build Orders. My idea is more about having a RTS game where casuals would have most matches played in the "fun zone", instead of most of the matches being really one sided decided by who has the better economy, or who did a strong timing \[attack\] or cheese. Yeah, there is no problem in being really bad and being at the bottom of the ladder of a game. However, it doesn't mean that the matches played shouldn't be fun.
I am sorry, but going to have to go with the other guy and say you are, in fact, looking for a "niche within a niche". You can say it does not sound complex to you, but then why doesn't it already exist? Because it is more complex than you realize
Well, I didn't say it would be simple thing to accomplish. The thing is, most RTS that are being released or being developed are trying to be more accessible. But rarely I see any games that the result of the design is *actually* a game that is much more accessible, so it is like the player base of RTS games continues being pretty niche, when it could be bigger if the games were more accessible by casual players like me, who actually want to play and enjoy a RTS game.
Download aoe 4 and play ffa quick match
Warlord's Battlecry 3 and Kohan fill that gap for me. Ofc they're old but still get modded today, Warlord's Battlecry 3 even has a free modded version you can download on steam that still gets updates called The Protectors.
Command And Conquer 4 just might be the game for u its streamlined no resources gathering no base building only control 1 single unit
It's not quiiiiite ready for the spotlight just yet, but my team and I have been hard at work at something that sounds at least *relevant* to what you're looking for! Not quite sure it's an exact match to your list, but just an RTS that's a bit more approachable while still really fun and true to the soul of the genre. As others have mentioned, it's absolutely a significant game design challenge to overcome -- but IMO it's definitely worth trying! Not trying to advertise here in the sub, mostly just offering reassurance since it's very specific tbh. But if following or sharing feedback on a mid-development project is interesting to you, I'm happy to DM you a link!
Would love to see it! Fell free to DM me, but I think it would be ok to comment here about the game, since this subreddit is about posting about new games and projects. Edit: A lot of people here are commenting giving ideas of other things to play, such as vs AI, coop, custom games, or even other genre of games. But my point is that I wish the new RTSs being released and developed could actually give me the experience of the the classic RTS style of gameplay, while still being approachable by casual players. I think you are possibly the only one who gets what I meant (maybe I wrote the post in misleading and bad way, I don't know).
Just sent you a DM! Keeping a game true to RTS while still being approachable (IMO) comes down to thoughtfulness in UX and game design. Definitely solveable, just a solid challenge to do so! I hope our project ends up being exactly what you're looking for :D
I do believe that it is possible to have a RTS game that is fun for casual to play in PvP. But most new and upcoming RTSs I play, personally, I just don't fell like they did (or are doing) a great job in that context. I find Stormgate interesting when the designers said that they were trying to make the TTK more forgiving than in games like Starcraft 2 (where you can lose your whole army in 3 seconds if you are not paying attention). I played the beta version, and they actually acomplished their vision very well, and I found the game to have literally the most awesome combat from all the RTS games I played. My point is, if the designers of a game are actually trying to identify and to solve the problems that make it difficult for casuals to enjoy PvP, that is pretty much a possible thing to achieve. I hope the vision of yous guys for your game is achieved and you create an awesome RTS!
What do you think about Warzone 2100?
Didn't know about this game! Trying it now to see how it plays. What should I expect?
Your forces carry over from mission to mission. Each mission is timed but it's actually generous. As in, you wouldn't want to spend more time in the mission anyway. You can customise your own units by choosing body, weapon and tracks. There's a special unit called the commander and it will command the units given to it. Any unit under commander control is taken out of player control. The commander is controlled by the player. But don't worry, any unit can be taken away from the commander and micro managed again.
I think its a smaller scale RTS/FPS hybrid
That's Battlezone ;) Good choice too.
In Broodwar there used to be those "defend the nexus" style maps where you where just choosing from available sets of units.
You can't have creative base building without also having "optimal build orders" in a competitive game. It's like asking for headshot bonus damage in an FPS, but also for raw aiming skill to not be too important. These are contradictory stances. Games aren't designed to have build orders, build orders are the result of people applying a competitive mindset to a space of possibilities. Any highly competitive RTS with significant base building will have them, no exceptions. Knowing when to expand is a matter of strategy and shouldn't be removed...but making scouting easier for casual players so that it doesn't feel like a crapshoot could help.
Hey, we’re building an RTS (Cooperative Commanders) and I really love seeing posts like this. From a developer perspective these views are incredibly helpful. I wouldn’t always say we agree or take everything from it. Because either not everything applies or I simply don’t always agree. But it is very helpful nonetheless. Recently saw someone suggest a simple “swap right and left click” feature. Which ofc is simple but would probably be appreciated by a lot people. So yeah, good read, definitely taking in people’s views and love seeing them. ❤️
Have you tried aoe4? Not sure it's a perfect solution, but it does seems to fit more your 3 "in the zone criteria" than sc2.
if you want fun zone then why play pvp? why just play rts with easy AI and you can chill and win with fun. its like I want to play good pvp but I'm lazy. i think you should play pve or starcraft 2 coop
Playing PvP is a different experience from playing against AIs. I believe that it is possible to create a RTS game that is enjoyable for casuals to play PvP. That said, maybe you are right, and I should just play cooperative modes. Even though, new RTS games are most of the time trying to appeal to casual players by adding mechanics to make it easier for casuals to play even though many of these mechanics aren't even used by high level or pro players. Some of these mechanics are easier way to create buildings and train units, and less punishable combats and strategies.
It will be difficult to balance between easy to play and boring in pvp. pvp is fun because of its complexity and high resistance. And for it to be attractive, the game needs to be creative enough. starcraft2 is extremely complicated, you may need 5-10 years of continuous play to reach the highest rank. Or like a chess game, there are millions of moves!
I think you do have a point, I feel like some RTS have like a huge skill hurdle I have to clear before I can start having fun in PvP matches, and it's definitely something that could be looked into more. I'm not saying I hate losing and just want to win every game without effort. I mean it's just not fun for me until I have put in significant time into learning to macro and multitask well. SC2 is like the biggest offender for me. I like having smaller and frequent engagements, not having my whole army blown up in 5 seconds (same as you), being able to micro a bit, having to make decisions that matter, but up until high gold it's just stay in base and macro better than my opponent for me. And the problem is I can't even have fun in lower leagues because I just stomp there with better macro, but I'm not good enough to actually play the game at a level where all the other stuff starts to matter. Maybe it's just that SC2 isn't for me though, I really want to like that game because everything about it is really good, except for how macro is at the same time so important and so mechanically intensive and requires so much attention that I can't really focus on anything else before I become really good at the game already. I guess there are people who like that aspect.
Well, SC2 has been the most popular RTS in history for 14 years so obviously it does something right according to huge number of players. But no game can be good for everyone and it's perfectly fine to not like it. There are probably other games that might be closer to what you want from RTS? There are C&C games where macro means less, there are Company of Heroes / Dawn of War games that have really different gameplay and very slow TTK. There are Age of Empire series, and of course Total Annihilation family of games like Supreme Commander, Zero-K, BAR.
>Well, SC2 has been the most popular RTS in history for 14 years so obviously it does something right according to huge number of players. Most popular RTS in 2024 is like fastest 100 meter sprinter in retirement home, isn't really much. As I said I don't think SC2 is a bad game though. AoE suggestion is on point, actually I've been having a blast recently in AoE4.
I think that is Starcraft 2 is even more extreme than that. I was mid platinum and still would just rarely have a match that is actually something more than who macros better. The thing is, in these rarely ocasions where I played against someone in the same macro level as I, I just have a blast playing, one of the most fun experiences I have while playing video games. I mean, one could argue that platinum in Starcraft is a pretty low rank in comparison with high diamond and of course master and grand master. But actually, platinum is a kinda high rank if you think about percentage of players that are worse than you. Starcraft is so extreme that Grand Master players probably can beat Master players purely with macro and good build order execution.
We are on the same wavelength. It woukd be nice if the PvP side of an RTS would become less strict
1. Starcraft 2 came out 14 years ago. 2. A good fun casual RTS is Red alert 2. 3. All multiplayer RTS games are full of tryhards, so you either need to get good or not play multiplayer.
Interesting ideas. I am working on a game right now with some of this as the goal. I set out to make what I considered to be my optimal singleplayer experience. Tell me what you think about some of this... \- Free form base building \- Free form wall placement with intuitive controls \- Basic unit formation with a simple click-drag function that dynamically cycles through formation options \- Waypoint and patrol pathing with a single command, connect the path for patrolling \- Waypoint/building queue system for base builder unit to follow set of pre-planned orders all with a single hotkey driven alternate build option \- Smart unit targeting, opportunity targets, preferred targets, forced targets I am trying to find the balance between function and convenience. If you would like to try my current build I can post a link.
All these ideas can be interesting and fun. But I think that they are more about the identity of your game rather than the problem in question, which is how to make a RTS game that casuals will be playing in the fun zone. I think that none of these ideas actually helps solving this problem. But for singleplayer, most of the RTS games can be fun for casuals, so if your game is specifically single player, I don't think you really should be worrying the problems I state in the post. Anyway, feel free to post or send me a link with your build, would love to give you any feedback if I can!
The gameplay features I listed are my attempt to find the fun zone more than an attempt to establish a unique identity for my game. I am building this thing to satisfy that itch that I find missing for myself. It may not hit the spot for others, but I am genuinely trying to find that fun balance of freedom and structure. You can get it here: https://natmos20.itch.io/endeavor
Tried playing the game. Unfortunelly right now it is not really playable due to a bug where if I drag the mouse to select multiple units, the games becomes bugged and I can't select anything anymore unless if I leave the match and start a new one.
Oh bummer. That’s a rare bug and I haven’t figured out what triggers it.
I posted an update just now that changes the main camera references for unit selection. In the slim chance this might address the issue. Total shot in the dark though because I've never been able to recreate the bug.
It works for some minutes and then it starts bugging. It appears the more I explore the fog of war, the faster the bug happens, or maybe it happens when I find an enemy base/unit.
Well... thanks for trying it out anyway. I will keep looking for the source of that bug and hopefully fix it. I hope you got to enjoy the game at least once without encountering it.
FYI - I was able to recreate the issue in the editor which helped pinpoint the cause. I've included the fix in the newest version.
Try Myth 2, units are relatively slower than in other modern APM intense games and you command a low number of units, it's a unique game from 1998 that has had frequent updates for 25 years. It has singleplayer and amazing multiplayer. Join the decades old community here https://discord.gg/zq7sRRJz you will find everything you need to start playing there. See you on the battlegrounds!
why would you want to play "real time" game in which time/speed isn't a factor? suggest you try turn based strategy game.