So why hasn't Turn Based Strategy Games seen the light of the Competetive Scene?
>Is it to simple?
>Too casual?
It could actually be really skilled-requiring if they made the maps bigger and more squares where you can move. If they increased the amount of units and balanced them out a bit, I'd think this could actually become a thing if someone would put the right amount of money into it.Just look at Hearthstone, that game requires 0 Skill and still it gets up to 75k+ in the really big tournaments. Why? Well because Blizzard are some rich motherfuckers
>>321832113
It's not 'intense' because it can give you unlimited time to finish your turn.
>>321832423
That could be fixed. Give them around 2 minutes to finnish their turn and suddenly a high amount of APM is required.
>people go where there's money
No shit? What's your point?
Days of Ruin was actually pretty deep, so much so that most of the install base wanted nothing to do with it.
>>321832520
You'll get shackled by the game's ui, sloppy camera, slow action menus and such, especially with a larger amount of units.
>>321832842
I wasn't using Advance Wars as an example of a Turn Based Strategy Game that could be made Competetive today.
I was using it as an example of... well, a Turn Based Strategy Game.
Let's say we could make a new game that's designed for PC, with great ui, camera and High-APM-friendly as it would be very fast paced. Wouldn't that work?
>>321833270
Better get started.
What are you talking about? Chess has a competitive scene since forever.
if you're talking about apm for a turn based strategy game it's doomed to be shallow garbage from the start
which i guess means that it has a chance to be popular like mobas and cs:go
>>321832782
Days of Ruin took the series into an entirely different direction story-wise.
Don't glorify yourself by saying.the story was deep. The story itself was as Sunday-morning cartoon villain as the previous iterations were, just with less vibrating colors.
>>321834813
I didn't say anything about a story.
