2 minutes ago, conquestor3 said:

I've played just about every rts released and many prototypes, and haven't found anything similar in depth of strategy.

Sounds very interesting. I'd be interested in hearing more about it!

On 9/11/2018 at 7:42 AM, Ianuarius said:

The problem I see as I browse the RTS on Steam... they're lacking a strong theme. Starcraft has a super strong theme. C&C had a strong theme. Other than that, I'm mainly just seeing generic, faceless units in generic environments doing nothing particularly interesting.

... but have you played 8-Bit Armies? That has a very strong sense of... something or other... I think...

Out of curiosity, do you have an opinion of the Dawn Of War games?

6 hours ago, Lendrigan Games said:

but have you played 8-Bit Armies? That has a very strong sense of... something or other

Hmm, it's... the fact they even called it 8-Bit Armies makes it feel like a very confused product.

It looks and feels nice like a cash grab mobile game looks and feels nice. You're right, it plays like C&C, but I don't really think it has a strong theme. If it had some type of Lego Movie characters, that would be another story.

6 hours ago, Lendrigan Games said:

Out of curiosity, do you have an opinion of the Dawn Of War games?

I never got into Warhammer because, well, none of my friends played it when I was growing up. We player Magic: The Gathering. So, I think they're a bit problematic. I did play the first Dawn of War a bit and it's a fine RTS, but I felt it was sort of pushing me away because I didn't know anything about the world. If you like Warhammer, then it's going to be a great experience for you, but it just didn't grab me.

If you make a license game, then you're kinda in your own special little box. You've got your own audience. RTS is of course a perfect match for a Warhammer game, so they knew what they were getting into.

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 6:42 PM, Ianuarius said:

The problem I see as I browse the RTS on Steam... they're lacking a strong theme. Starcraft has a super strong theme. C&C had a strong theme. Other than that, I'm mainly just seeing generic, faceless units in generic environments doing nothing particularly interesting. When you think about Starcraft, you think about Jim Raynor, Kerrigan... Red Alert had Kane. Those games got players invested in them on a deeper level than just remodeled chess pieces or army men. I respect that.

Strong theme (or should we better say setting?) of course does create immersion and adds to the games unique look.
But I think there is deeper reason why mentioned games are disinteresting and weak: they are nothing but clones of C&C without any innovation or balance.
They have nothing unique in the gameplay and mechanics domain. It seems to me that the only line of RTS development that survived is the complex stone-scissors-paper system of specialised units that Starcraft series develops. All other lines are stagnant for a long time.
All this makes me wonder if classic "pure RTS" have exhausted their potential and there simply can't any significant development.

Which brings us back to RTS design topic.
And here are some related questions I would like to ask:
What possible directions of RTS development do you see?
What mechanics can be added? How can RTS evolve?
Maybe it should extend upwards to some kind of metastrategy with RTS mode as an element?
Or maybe elements should be borrowed from other genres?

Interesting. You bring up good points. Personally, I'd be happy with another game like Starcraft or C&C that's well made, well balanced, and has a strong theme. I brought up theme for a reason, because that's typically what people want.

Ubisoft releases the same game ten times in a year, but in one of them you're an assassin and in another one you're a caveman or something. People, in general, want experiences, not mechanics.

The thing that has turned me off with most new RTS games is the fact that they try to be so different. I can see how that might sound stupid, but I like what I like. What I want is Warcraft II again, but with a little bit different theme. The units should be fun and have distinct personalities and designs. But to me, that's what I like in an RTS. I want to build my base, gather a bunch of interesting units, and go conquer shit, haha.

1 hour ago, Ianuarius said:

I can see how that might sound stupid, but I like what I like. What I want is Warcraft II again, but with a little bit different theme. The units should be fun and have distinct personalities and designs. But to me, that's what I like in an RTS. I want to build my base, gather a bunch of interesting units, and go conquer shit, haha.

This is what I want from Piranha Bytes, but they wouldn't do even that nowadays.))

Thus I understand you. As for me, I have always waited for RTS to add something new not just change skins. Somewhere between 1990 and 2005 RTSs evolved and progressed turbulently. I remember, for example, how innovative and interesting were the features they added in WarWind: implants, enterable buildings, unit retraining, vehicles that belong to no faction until some unit enters them. The very fact that every unit type was trained from simple worker was novel. Each unit also had very detailed and unique look just as the whole setting. Ironically all of this didn't help the game.)

I left RTS for RPG some ten years ago because became tired of it (and of seeing either the same clones or things that went too far away from original RTS) . Now I decided to return to RTS genre but as a developer, not player. Am now I rack my brains on how to make something more than just another clone and whether this is even possible. This is why I asked the questions above.

I can see your point of view.

56 minutes ago, Ciaphas said:

Am now I rack my brains on how to make something more than just another clone and whether this is even possible.

Game design is a two-step process:

1. Figure out what you want the experience to be.
2. Figure out how to craft that experience.

Thinking about possible new mechanics is kinda backwards. You gotta figure out what you want the experience to be. Once you've got that nailed down as accurately as possible, you just start thinking about what reinforces that experience.

Example.

If I were to make a Mad Max RTS, what's the experience I want to give the players? I don't want to think about this too hard just for a forum post , but let's say that it needs to be a brutal struggle for survival as the highly mobile units combat in motion. How do I achieve that experience? Well, first of all, all the infantry units need to go. Everything happens on vehicles. There are resources like water and oil located on the map and those need to be conquered. Maybe you can build traps that stop enemies from just driving through your base. Maybe other type of static defenses like cannons? Maybe there'll be sand storms! Just something. How would you make it more brutal?

Anyway, it all starts with the experience.

The other factor that really landed in the last few years is that RTS became a pretty major spectator sport. Arguably the StarCraft 2 scene is what gave rise to the entire Twitch phenomena, and most successful RTS/MOBA since then are heavily dependent on Twitch viewership to remain relevant.

This has interesting knock-on effects on game design. Now not only does the game have to be fun to play, it has to be fun to watch. The gameplay needs to be readable by someone with fairly limited knowledge of the game. Action needs to be concentrated where the camera is looking, rather than spread along a broad battle front. Stalemates are uninteresting to viewers, but comebacks are excellent, so the balance of power needs to tip back and forth relatively quickly, and the game needs to resolve in a fairly fixed amount of time.

Micro-heavy gameplay is good for streaming because it keeps the camera centred over the action. Rock-scissors-paper gameplay is great because it makes the unit and counter unit selection obvious to viewers. StarCraft's asymmetrical races are great because it increases variety in games. And so on...

9 hours ago, Ciaphas said:

What possible directions of RTS development do you see?

What mechanics can be added? How can RTS evolve?
Maybe it should extend upwards to some kind of metastrategy with RTS mode as an element?
Or maybe elements should be borrowed from other genres?

One thing to help with avoiding C&C/Warcraft clones is to allow to be an RTS everything that requires strategy within real time events, ie. the Total War series and (rather arguably, I admit) Mount & Blade.  Base-building and the isometric perspective are popular within the genre but not necessary for defining it.
As well as the original RTSs have aged, hopeful successors need to expand on the formula rather than merely preserve it.

1: The way of the spectator sport, as @swiftcoder pointed out.  Other than that... experimental flash & indie games.  I've played a few RTSs on Newgrounds and Kongregate that were strategic and not C&C.
2: Ultimately, the RTS has to evolve from discomfort with the available formulas ("necessity is the mother of invention" and all that).  Without a desire for something concrete, attempted evolutions will be just novelties.
3.  We already have Total War
4.  Implimenting RPG mechanics worked out for the Warlords Battlecry.  Granted, adding adventuring mid battles didn't pan out so well for D&D Dragonshard.

On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 8:01 AM, Lendrigan Games said:

One thing to help with avoiding C&C/Warcraft clones is to allow to be an RTS everything that requires strategy within real time events, ie. the Total War series and (rather arguably, I admit) Mount & Blade.  Base-building and the isometric perspective are popular within the genre but not necessary for defining it.

I would say that Mount & Blade strategical aspect evolution would produce something like Battlezone as final result. The strategy from the eyes of commander in first person view so to say. This is an interesting and fruitful approach (I believe its merger with RPG can be especially fruitfull. ), but too deviating from classical strategy (not even RTS but any strategy game). This evolution can be viewed as extention "downwards" the detail scale -- to include single unit level.

The other direction I can think of is to extend game "upwards" -- to a higher level. This would meen to add global strategy aspect in real time where RTS battle would be a single battle on some global map. My idea here is that it can be a global map without any division from which player "zooms" to certain points to control RTS battles. Kind of Supreme Commander maximum distance view where bases and large masses of units turn to dots, map details fade into physical map like view and hubs from global strategy (like province centers or cities) added to the same space. It would be an RTS so big in map and scale that it would grow to global strategy size, if you understand what I mean.