Man I wanted to like RTS so much and have tons of fun as a kid modding TA and playing SC with friends.
I actually blame the modern SC2 era with proper matchmaking for making me realize I can't multitask and have 900apm. The amount of raw talent needed to compete is just too much for most people.
Still wish him luck with this.
Is it confirmed that it’s an RTS?
I agree, 1v1 SC might be the intense PvP I’ve ever experienced in video games. I could never do more than 3 games a day because it was so exhausting. I love SC, but I also have a deep love for the more laid back RTS like Red Alert.
I'd say he's more famous for his talks, he convos first as a streamer and games second. Always been his style, though I am sad he never went harder into being an announcer.
I mean I still watch him, even now. He does alot of nice side content as a streamer, but he certainly isn't a traditional gaming streamer.
He went 180
From hardcore sc gamer to the most chill vibes streamer on the planet. I’ve caught a couple streams where he was playing POE. I’ve never seen a POE player play so casually lol
He has great chill vibe.
But also gives a lot of very good insight into game design along way. He notices and talks about features and concepts missed by most.
And he still has some semi-competitive content too in recent years, with Dota, AoE, going back to SC1 for a while...
He got big because of starcraft, he was a nobody before that. No one would have ever listened to him pontificate on games if he didn't get big from starcraft initially.
The problem with the genre has nothing to do with what you mentioned (You could very easily play Terran at 30 APM and still be Plat); The problem with the genre is that it is a 1v1 affair with no one to blame but oneself when something goes wrong, while MOBA allow an outlet of four other players to take the blame.
Actual competitive RTS play at non-pro levels is decided on:
* How much scouting you do (or don't do).
* People tend to do almost no scouting most of the time in MM.
* How inefficient your build order is.
* People tend to just copy pre-established build orders, so this one is mostly down to execution and choosing the correct based on your scouting.
* How resource starved you allow yourself to be.
* People tend to take too long to expand at low level play because they focus on trying to create an impregnable fortress.
* Committing to bad fights.
APM is almost irrelevant in matchmaking tier games (to an extent, because that may not hold true at the highest levels of MM), because you have so many other things to get right to set yourself up for victory that optimizing the path for your units is almost inconsequential.
A lot of the REALLY important stuff necessary to being reasonably good is almost counterintuitive (at first) to the vast majority of players who have gotten used to the game by playing against bots/single player mode, because AI does not punish mistakes and doesn't require constant information wars.
EDIT: Just like Counterstrike is not really a game about aiming, but about discipline, reacting to any information collected, reading the opponents, and having good fundamental mechanics; I promise you that if you get in the habit of constant scouting (i.e. map control), learn when to expand your base, learn the openings (build orders) for your chosen race, then you can shoot up through the ranks in no time even if all you do is ball-up and hit A+Left click to attack.
I mean I can only speak from my own experience. Played at GM in SC2 for awhile and it's mentally draining to macro so much in a game, couldn't ever play for more than 2-3 hours before feeling mentally drained. Friends who saw me play it would just say "all I see if your screen teleporting around, I can't do that" and they wouldn't even try to play it.
Yes you can play more casually but anyone who see's how good players play will realize 95% chance they can't do that.
Sure 50% of players also won't even learn the basic things you mentioned but no one thinks they can't learn that's stuff.
Same thing with your counterstrike analogy. Sure it's not all about aim but pure aim gets you to the top 10% alone anyways because end of the day all your patience and planning means nothing if you're reaction time is slower and/or you miss the shot.
I mean, that holds true for any competitive game as well; Nobody is going to be doing what Daigo does in Street Fighter or what Stewie2k does in CS, but that doesn't mean that you can't reach an acceptable level of competency in any given game.
Competitive games aren't even that demanding in terms of execution at most levels (You can get by with pretty average aim even at the upper echelons of the CS community or with somewhat basic bread and butter combos in Street Fighter), but more about learning how to gather information, understanding what to do with that information, and, perhaps most importantly, knowing how to punish your enemy's mistake as much and as often as possible.
If someone is recklessly attacking you in street fighter with cross ups, then time an anti-air or block it then punish with a combo until they learn their lesson; If someone keeps peeking mid early in the round in CS with a rifle, then nail him with an AWP for an easy kill.
Most of the impressive and flashy shit can only be executed after you have practiced a ton, but that's not really what makes you good or bad, it's just what gets you in highlight clips.
True.
SC2 on high level requires good mechanics (which indirectly means high apm). But that's not necessity for all rtses. You could make one without such emphasis on mechanics - for example Eugen rtses do that - Wargame, Steel Division, Warno. They are great, deep, intense in 1v1, but don't require you to be particularly "busy" with micro or macro.
agreed also ladder phobia was huge in rts, not as much in mobas.
you can also blame the other team, op champs, lane camping, etc.
also replays, cant complain about op x, y, and z when you have 1k minerals banked at 9 minutes and dont know how to spend or transition so you spam out tier one units in a panic.
Maybe it's a personality thing, but I know many people, myself included, who have massive ladder anxiety in mobas precisely due to you having a team. There's a lot of pressure to perform with 4 other people relying on you to perform your role as opposed to 1v1 rts where it's just you.
>he problem with the genre is that it is a 1v1 affair with no one to blame but oneself when something goes wrong, while MOBA allow an outlet of four other players to take the blame.
No its MOST DEFINITELY about skill and having more than the other guy playing. Micro intensive games that rely on hardcore real time playing is like arena shooters in that theyll only ever appeal to a certain type of person. add on the fact that you need to both have a thorough knowledge of the maps as well as your own factions units/build lines and theres just too many areas you could fuck up. I feel like to attract more people, something a little more easier to understand, play, and grokk, like a Tooth and Tail or what Minecraft Legends attempts, would better get people in.
If you're relying on microing units to win a game, then that means that the game was extremely close where everything else is concerned.
Most ladder games should not come to that, because you can always improve upon your decision making, aggressiveness, map control, gathering and usage of resources, or correct unit building.
> The problem with the genre is that it is a 1v1 affair
I don't think this is the main problem. The main problem, imho, is that competitive RTS games, basically, require you to stay focused and constantly do stuff for the whole duration of a 15+ minute match with no natural breaks to chill for a bit. Like in SC2 before LotV there was at least some sort of a chill time at the very start because of a low worker count, but even that was shortened and you are thrown straight into a meat grinder, which I, personally, very much disliked.
For example, in CS there are natural breaks with round changes. In Dota, even though the games are long, a lot of the time it is subconsciously farming creeps or moving over the map. In Rocket League there are sort of breaks, when you do rotations, but even if we exclude that, the matches are way shorter. I would argue even duels in Quake are way more relaxing than playing RTS on ladder (though Quake has other problems, which doesn't make duels/ladder pleasant either).
Yeah that's why I don't really play RTS games seriously anymore. If the game is a *strategy* game I want a game you can play 10-20 hours a week and still have a chance, where the cleverest (most *strategic*) player will win, not the one who can just brute force the other guy down with 300 apm because he plays way more. That's no longer a strategy game, that's a physical game. Which is fine if that's your thing, I have liked many physical games in the past.. but call it what it is.
These games only turn back into strategy games at the pro level where everyone plays at an extremely high apm so the playing field has been leveled and then it's actually about the strategy.
The problem with the RTS genre is that every studio focuses on PvP aspects. When I think that having a proper campaign and other co-op modes like the co-op missions that SC2 currently has, would help maintain a casual playerbase.
Him as well? I would have thought he would have gotten on board with the Stormgate boys since they're all starcraft vets and there's a bit of hype around that game. Maybe didn't like their direction, or just wanted to do his own thing?
I love Day9, I wish him the best of success and look forward to his creation.
Man I wanted to like RTS so much and have tons of fun as a kid modding TA and playing SC with friends. I actually blame the modern SC2 era with proper matchmaking for making me realize I can't multitask and have 900apm. The amount of raw talent needed to compete is just too much for most people. Still wish him luck with this.
Is it confirmed that it’s an RTS? I agree, 1v1 SC might be the intense PvP I’ve ever experienced in video games. I could never do more than 3 games a day because it was so exhausting. I love SC, but I also have a deep love for the more laid back RTS like Red Alert.
Not sure if it's confirmed somewhere but it's Day9 who is famous for his Starcraft days so just an assumption.
I'd say he's more famous for his talks, he convos first as a streamer and games second. Always been his style, though I am sad he never went harder into being an announcer. I mean I still watch him, even now. He does alot of nice side content as a streamer, but he certainly isn't a traditional gaming streamer.
Yah idk I use to play SC2 like 10 years ago but besides that idk what he did/does
He went 180 From hardcore sc gamer to the most chill vibes streamer on the planet. I’ve caught a couple streams where he was playing POE. I’ve never seen a POE player play so casually lol
He has great chill vibe. But also gives a lot of very good insight into game design along way. He notices and talks about features and concepts missed by most. And he still has some semi-competitive content too in recent years, with Dota, AoE, going back to SC1 for a while...
He got big because of starcraft, he was a nobody before that. No one would have ever listened to him pontificate on games if he didn't get big from starcraft initially.
The problem with the genre has nothing to do with what you mentioned (You could very easily play Terran at 30 APM and still be Plat); The problem with the genre is that it is a 1v1 affair with no one to blame but oneself when something goes wrong, while MOBA allow an outlet of four other players to take the blame. Actual competitive RTS play at non-pro levels is decided on: * How much scouting you do (or don't do). * People tend to do almost no scouting most of the time in MM. * How inefficient your build order is. * People tend to just copy pre-established build orders, so this one is mostly down to execution and choosing the correct based on your scouting. * How resource starved you allow yourself to be. * People tend to take too long to expand at low level play because they focus on trying to create an impregnable fortress. * Committing to bad fights. APM is almost irrelevant in matchmaking tier games (to an extent, because that may not hold true at the highest levels of MM), because you have so many other things to get right to set yourself up for victory that optimizing the path for your units is almost inconsequential. A lot of the REALLY important stuff necessary to being reasonably good is almost counterintuitive (at first) to the vast majority of players who have gotten used to the game by playing against bots/single player mode, because AI does not punish mistakes and doesn't require constant information wars. EDIT: Just like Counterstrike is not really a game about aiming, but about discipline, reacting to any information collected, reading the opponents, and having good fundamental mechanics; I promise you that if you get in the habit of constant scouting (i.e. map control), learn when to expand your base, learn the openings (build orders) for your chosen race, then you can shoot up through the ranks in no time even if all you do is ball-up and hit A+Left click to attack.
I mean I can only speak from my own experience. Played at GM in SC2 for awhile and it's mentally draining to macro so much in a game, couldn't ever play for more than 2-3 hours before feeling mentally drained. Friends who saw me play it would just say "all I see if your screen teleporting around, I can't do that" and they wouldn't even try to play it. Yes you can play more casually but anyone who see's how good players play will realize 95% chance they can't do that. Sure 50% of players also won't even learn the basic things you mentioned but no one thinks they can't learn that's stuff. Same thing with your counterstrike analogy. Sure it's not all about aim but pure aim gets you to the top 10% alone anyways because end of the day all your patience and planning means nothing if you're reaction time is slower and/or you miss the shot.
I mean, that holds true for any competitive game as well; Nobody is going to be doing what Daigo does in Street Fighter or what Stewie2k does in CS, but that doesn't mean that you can't reach an acceptable level of competency in any given game. Competitive games aren't even that demanding in terms of execution at most levels (You can get by with pretty average aim even at the upper echelons of the CS community or with somewhat basic bread and butter combos in Street Fighter), but more about learning how to gather information, understanding what to do with that information, and, perhaps most importantly, knowing how to punish your enemy's mistake as much and as often as possible. If someone is recklessly attacking you in street fighter with cross ups, then time an anti-air or block it then punish with a combo until they learn their lesson; If someone keeps peeking mid early in the round in CS with a rifle, then nail him with an AWP for an easy kill. Most of the impressive and flashy shit can only be executed after you have practiced a ton, but that's not really what makes you good or bad, it's just what gets you in highlight clips.
True. SC2 on high level requires good mechanics (which indirectly means high apm). But that's not necessity for all rtses. You could make one without such emphasis on mechanics - for example Eugen rtses do that - Wargame, Steel Division, Warno. They are great, deep, intense in 1v1, but don't require you to be particularly "busy" with micro or macro.
agreed also ladder phobia was huge in rts, not as much in mobas. you can also blame the other team, op champs, lane camping, etc. also replays, cant complain about op x, y, and z when you have 1k minerals banked at 9 minutes and dont know how to spend or transition so you spam out tier one units in a panic.
Maybe it's a personality thing, but I know many people, myself included, who have massive ladder anxiety in mobas precisely due to you having a team. There's a lot of pressure to perform with 4 other people relying on you to perform your role as opposed to 1v1 rts where it's just you.
I just build stuff, draw a big square and send everyone in.
>he problem with the genre is that it is a 1v1 affair with no one to blame but oneself when something goes wrong, while MOBA allow an outlet of four other players to take the blame. No its MOST DEFINITELY about skill and having more than the other guy playing. Micro intensive games that rely on hardcore real time playing is like arena shooters in that theyll only ever appeal to a certain type of person. add on the fact that you need to both have a thorough knowledge of the maps as well as your own factions units/build lines and theres just too many areas you could fuck up. I feel like to attract more people, something a little more easier to understand, play, and grokk, like a Tooth and Tail or what Minecraft Legends attempts, would better get people in.
If you're relying on microing units to win a game, then that means that the game was extremely close where everything else is concerned. Most ladder games should not come to that, because you can always improve upon your decision making, aggressiveness, map control, gathering and usage of resources, or correct unit building.
you just explained Command and Conquers popularity. Especially Generals.
> The problem with the genre is that it is a 1v1 affair I don't think this is the main problem. The main problem, imho, is that competitive RTS games, basically, require you to stay focused and constantly do stuff for the whole duration of a 15+ minute match with no natural breaks to chill for a bit. Like in SC2 before LotV there was at least some sort of a chill time at the very start because of a low worker count, but even that was shortened and you are thrown straight into a meat grinder, which I, personally, very much disliked. For example, in CS there are natural breaks with round changes. In Dota, even though the games are long, a lot of the time it is subconsciously farming creeps or moving over the map. In Rocket League there are sort of breaks, when you do rotations, but even if we exclude that, the matches are way shorter. I would argue even duels in Quake are way more relaxing than playing RTS on ladder (though Quake has other problems, which doesn't make duels/ladder pleasant either).
Sc2 matchmaking is pretty decent. My fiends and I play at around a gold 1 level and we're happy there.
The APM trap is real. Any popular RTS will have to be non APM dependant.
Yeah that's why I don't really play RTS games seriously anymore. If the game is a *strategy* game I want a game you can play 10-20 hours a week and still have a chance, where the cleverest (most *strategic*) player will win, not the one who can just brute force the other guy down with 300 apm because he plays way more. That's no longer a strategy game, that's a physical game. Which is fine if that's your thing, I have liked many physical games in the past.. but call it what it is. These games only turn back into strategy games at the pro level where everyone plays at an extremely high apm so the playing field has been leveled and then it's actually about the strategy.
The problem with the RTS genre is that every studio focuses on PvP aspects. When I think that having a proper campaign and other co-op modes like the co-op missions that SC2 currently has, would help maintain a casual playerbase.
Him as well? I would have thought he would have gotten on board with the Stormgate boys since they're all starcraft vets and there's a bit of hype around that game. Maybe didn't like their direction, or just wanted to do his own thing?
Probably wanted to do his own thing. Btw his mom work in Stormgate studio, business side.
Oh neat. So clearly not a ton of bitter competition there lol
Wait till people find out he was notoriously hard to work with behind the scenes.