The Next Major RTS Will Fail. This Is Why.

real-time strategy just isn't popular anymore players much prefer mobas shooters and battle royale and developers will never invest in making one there's no way to monetize it no loot boxes or season passes when a new title releases it comes and goes with little fanfare the playerbase dissipates in a few months it can't sustain competitive ladder and the game dies rts is a relic of gaming's past as a content creator i hear people say these things a lot when talking about the future of rts and honestly i think they're full of it people love to call doom and gloom it's an easy alternative to critical thinking and analysis people who remember the good old days of sitting on the gilded throne as the king of esports declaring that all is lost and the world has left them behind while i disagree on their diagnosis why they are correct about one thing new rts releases have been consistently bombing i'm going to argue that the core problem with rts right now stems not from the players but from the developers there's been a fundamental design philosophy shift for rts developers and publishers have lost vision on what makes these games so much fun to play and if they don't change course they are destined to a fate of mediocrity at best they're targeting the wrong audience not focusing on the correct content and fundamentally misunderstanding who the average rts player is and if this doesn't get discussed it will continue to happen again and again but why am i qualified to talk about this in addition to the basic facts that i've played rts for over 20 years now have a career based around rts and run a large rts community i've also worked as an independent consultant for two currently unreleased smaller indie titles this project worked acted as the spark that inspired me to take up this project over the last few months i've been surveying groups of rts players ranging from casual to hardcore and i've received an absurd amount of feedback the sample size of my data is currently 7 500 responses an undeniably healthy data set using this data my experience as a player and as a creator i'm going to explain why the developers keep missing the mark what old developers used to do differently and how they can fix it but before that even if developer makes the perfect game there has to be people interested in playing it so how many people are playing rts right now in march 2022 the answer is way more than you think getting user data for games can be pretty difficult so i'm going to have to focus on what is currently the largest rts starcraft 2. together we're gonna walk through the steps to reach an approximation of the game's monthly average player base unfortunately blizzard really hates giving out data about their player counts something about wow's decline being very embarrassing for them to talk about thankfully starcraft 2 had someone who was the embodiment of passion and while blizzard wasn't willing to talk about their numbers one man was on november 1st 2017 totalbiscuit tweeted oh and by the way we've seen the numbers sc2 has a consistent 1.8 million to 2 million monthly user base the entire year co-op is extremely popular arcade has received a boost with the revamp and there's a lot more coming first of all 2 million monthly users for a 7 year old game is absurd but that data is over 4 years old now it's not going to be correct for today but thankfully we do have some nice numbers of ladder games played both in 2017 and now we can use that data to extrapolate the average monthly player base for 2022. the three seasons for the year of 2017 average 150 140 000 and 131 000 games played per day this makes a yearly average of a hundred and forty thousand for the full year of 2021 the average was a hundred and ninety three point eight thousand a thirty eight point four percent increase in number of ladder games played this growth is almost certainly because the game went free to play in 2017 right after this tweet unless something incredibly unexpected is happening with the math here that means that starcraft whose active player base is consistently and reliably over 2 million monthly active users this is almost 12 years after the game's release and two years of being with bare minimum support the reason that new rts are failing is not because of a lack of potential players so the rts audience exists but who are they this might come as a bit of a surprise but even a decade after starcraft 2's release the large majority of players and viewers are casuals in my survey data over three-quarters of respondents self-identify as casual players with under 20 being hardcore this data lines up fairly well with a comment made by matt morris in an interview with loco back in 2016. like most people come into these games are you know wings heart they play the campaign we see about 80 of people that love the campaign and only 20 stick around for the hardcore multiplayer i mean these are the really hardcore engaged is that like 80 80 to 20 yeah it drops like that so you know for a long time we've been saying how how do we help these people stick around because they obviously love the game while my question divides between hardcore and casual while matt morris talks about co-op and campaign versus ranked multiplayer there is a strong correlation between these groups it's not bold to assume that the majority of self-described hardcore players focus on competition and esports while casuals prefer everything else which brings us to error number one of most modern rts's focusing on competitive ladder and esports with game releases like grey goo and age of empires 4 the focus was entirely on multiplayer the campaign was an obvious afterthought the ai was garbage and at times it verged on unplayable but this is alienating eighty percent of your audience in my polls i asked how important it was for a game to have various aspects for people to give it a try on a scale of one to five one was not important at all and five was essential here's the data for having a campaign cooperative content ranked 1v1 and an active esports scene it's pretty obvious that the development focusing on creating a ranked multiplayer environment and pro play is not going to draw in the numbers to double check these numbers i went hunting through steam achievements on various rts games to see how many people are touching the multiplayer i was shocked to see how low some of these numbers were iron harvest sits at 19.4 percent and it's the highest of the bunch company of heroes 2 is 14.2 percent gray goo 4.7 and ashes of the singularity a measly 1.8 percent though that last one is probably because everybody who boots that game has their gpu melt unfortunately as far as i can tell there's no achievement data for age of empires 4 but i would be surprised if it were a significant outlier here so if ranked multiplayer is not the most important thing to an rts title for most players why do developers keep focusing on it it's pretty simple selection bias developers want to make the best product that they can and very often bring on active and important members of rts communities to help give those communities what they want this is a great idea in theory these people are very familiar with the scene in a way that developers can't be but if you're a community member who makes their livelihood because of rts you aren't going to be a representative sample of the actual audience being a literal rts professional be it player or content creator makes you the definition of hardcore and yes that absolutely includes me of course the hardcore of the hardcore gonna focus on 1v1 even when they look at people who they see as less hardcore in their communities they're so firmly integrated to the competitive community that they only see people with the same interests i'm not saying it's wrong to create a game that caters solely to hardcore players but developers should know that they are actively alienating a large portion of potential players by doing so attacked on after thought of a campaign isn't going to cut it one more thing about audiences before we move on there's a common misconception that the right rts will grab all of the moba players and bring them back over from league or dota this idea stemmed from the fact that defense of the ancients started off as a custom game mode for warcraft 3 and thus all early mobile players were rts players but warcraft 3 is almost 20 now that doesn't apply to the modern mobile player base i pulled about which genres rts players tend to play and mobas are behind rpgs strategy games fps's and sandbox games if you feel like you need to bring in a different audience you're better off catering towards halo skyrim and kerbal space program players before we move on to the main points i'm going to switch to opinion grant for a moment and talk about stuff given the niche i feel on youtube and twitch i interact with a larger variety of casual and newcomers to the rts genre than almost anybody else on earth my focus on campaign based content makes me a natural springboard for people looking to get into the game from this unique position i've heard a lot of opinions and preconceptions about rts and its players from more or less outside sources and i think many of these are fairly problematic starcraft players in particular love to talk about how freaking hard the game is how a ladder match is like playing chess and piano at the same time how it's the most competitive one versus one game how you physically can't click on the button to queue a zerg unless your iq is over 800. basically it's a lot of self-flattery but it works people see these views when they're looking into a game to play and it's not a good thing it makes people hesitant to try out the game they're not sure they want to spend the time it takes to learn when the community makes it seem like you need a phd to build a barracks i think this is part of the reason that the casual to competitive conversion rate is so low people are intimidated my experience with both the starcraft and warcraft communities is that once you're inside they're kind supporting and fairly non-toxic but from an outside perspective we look like a bunch of self-aggrandizing elitists so no wonder developers are trying to market towards that angle i think it would be healthy to admit that while professional play is absolutely cutthroat intense action all the way through it's not that way for 99 of players if most people knew most ladder games were more like two drunk toddlers fencing with pool noodles the intimidation factor would be significantly lower so with all that out of the way let's get to the core of this what did old rts have that was so successful that new rts's are not doing it's worth stating that this is not a blanket truth many many rts have released in the past that have crashed and burned in ways that make recent releases look successful instead we're going to look at the common themes from the three biggest success stories these being the age of empires and mythology series command and conquer and the blizzard rts's there are three pillars that these franchises had that allowed them to rise above and beyond and dominate the market for almost a decade they are the engine spectacle and development tools to introduce the first pillar i want to talk about the 2020 release iron harvest this game is awesome post world war 1 diesel punk mechs is an incredibly cool and unique setting the units are stylized and varied from tiny walkers with machine guns to enormous monsters with siege cannons the visuals are pretty solid the campaign voice acting is fun and it's consistently supported with dlc content it's really astonishing how uninterested i am at playing any more of it the game fundamentally fails in its most basic aspects pathfinding and responsiveness when a group of units is told to go to one place they'll split up and head a variety of different directions making controlling even mid-sized armies a chore units are clunky particularly large units take ages before they're able to execute commands often creating frustrating situations where your most prized forces are sitting around like dunces while being killed it relies heavily on a cover system for holding areas with infantry but the outsides of most buildings can't actually be used for cover with garrisoning being the only option the enemy will select a unit of yours to kill and if pulled back the ai will charge their most expensive units through your entire army to reach it i wanna like iron harvest i really do but i just can't the game fundamentally feels bad to play many times when you lose it's not because the enemy out tactics or overpowered you it's because you're fighting a 2v1 against the opponent and the game's controls it's worth stating that some games in the past feel like that starcraft 1 doesn't feel good to play these days but it was an upgrade from previous titles like age of empires and then age of empires 2 was an upgrade from starcraft red alert was an upgrade from both and that repeats over and over each release being slightly better than the rest until starcraft 2 where no other modern rts has matched the pathing or the controls rts is a genre where you're going to have to spend significantly more time on the fundamentals gorgeous aesthetics mean nothing if the player is focusing all of their attention on trying to get the unit to move properly incredible sound design for attacks is worthless if units can't find their way to the battlefield in games like shooters the technical investment is far lower engines come with pre-provided tools and developers have a firm understanding of the genre by now but rts needs a little bit more care under the hood for all you executives and project managers out there it might seem difficult to justify spending all the extra time and money on getting these fundamentals correct but i promise you that by the end of this video you will understand that this is not a barrier to entry for the genre but instead an investment into saving more time effort and money down the line one thing i find incredibly fascinating about the big three is they managed to span all of the main settings of gaming age of empires was historical command and conqueror was modern fantasy warcraft was high fantasy and starcraft was sci-fi despite the settings being so wildly different each of these games do a great job with the second pillar spectacle spectacle doesn't need much explanation cool things are cool and using cool things is fun age of empires allowed players to recreate history in a way that was completely novel at the time age mythology brought literal deities into the mix dropping meteors and thunderstorms on your opponent before moving in with an army of minotaurs in chimera command and conquer started fairly average but it dialed up to 11 with the red alert series weather control tesla coil troopers zeppelins mind controlling enemies to run them into a grinder to harvest them for resources it's crazy warcraft hit all the fantasy notes pillaging your foes with orcs ambushing as elves powerful heroes that shape the battles around them a huge diverse selection of third party creeps that can be both fought for rewards and hired as mercenaries and finally starcraft's far future protoss facing against the hillbilly terrans with janky explosives and of course the zerg rushes that are so iconic that they become a basic part of gaming jargon spectacle is what you put on the box art on the steam page it's what draws people in and then starts to get them thinking when things are crazy and wild the player gets excited to find new interactions and combos ways to rush towards their favorite unit ways to make it work even if it's a little bit underpowered as the design focus has shifted towards multiplayer first a lot of spectacle has been cut decimating armies with an invulnerable soviet tank line with the iron curtain just isn't fair in multiplayer you can't have yuri mind control enemies and grind them up for cash it's too cost efficient when the design is for multiplayer first you inevitably cut the things that should be selling your product a good example of getting this balance right is starcraft 2. so we had all these ideas while developing starcraft 2 that we thought were pretty cool we had units like the diamondback which is this tank that can move and shoot at the same time well it turned out it stepped a lot on the marauder it stepped even a little bit on the siege tank in terms of its role these units were too similar and it wasn't actually that easy to control it was actually very difficult to manage what this thing was shooting at while you're moving it this guy wasn't for esports we had a spectre it's a new type of ghost this guy's gonna be cool oh okay well now we got two ghosts you're going to pick one you're not going to use the other one and we didn't want to cut the ghost it seemed kind of core to what starcraft was all about so not for esports the poor spectre but these are all cool these are all units than any other game i'd ever worked on i absolutely would have put in but since those other games weren't designed to be an esport they made no sense for starcraft but we wanted them in the game we felt like we've done the art they're fun units to play with why should the consumer not have the opportunity to play with these and so we tried to find places we could put these though i would argue that they didn't go far enough originally the thor was going to be a unit so massive that it had to be built by suvs on the field battle cruisers were going to have custom weapon attachments like plasma torpedoes that had to be individually upgraded the mother ship could stop time crack planets and create insta-kill black holes the fact that we never got to play with these is honestly disappointing i'm not saying that competitive multiplayer should be filled to the brim with broken game ending super weapons but i feel like each faction should be designed with absurdity in mind make it ridiculous for the single player experience and then trim it down to what's fair for multiplayer boring uninspired units and abilities are all too common in recent rts cool stuff cells at this point you have a game with a strong fundamental base you've designed bombastic over-the-top units to energize and inspire the player base but you don't get to make a game just yet now is the time to put effort into making a great editor not just a good editor a great editor this is the final pillar of successful rts the terrain mission scripting triggers cut scenes and even the ai should all be created inside of the modules of this editor it is the swiss army knife that creates every piece of the game that the player interacts with we all know the gaming scene has changed in the last 20 years you can no longer get away with launching a product a year later puffing out an expansion and calling it a day games as a service is the new normal the new goal is the constant progressive creation and distribution of content in a game so that the players will continue to stick around a powerful editor allows developers to create that content at a rapid pace take age of empires 2 for instance the game initially launched with 5 campaigns and as time went on due to having a well-designed editor campaigns have continued to be made and sold as of writing this the game has a staggering 33 available campaigns with almost 250 missions this is an incredible amount of content to be pushing out a constant way to reliably draw players back into the ecosystem getting them hyped for the next content release a powerful editor also gives the flexibility to capitalize on things that have accidentally become successful starcraft 2's co-op commander system was initially a tiny side project when it debuted in 2015. it was considered less important than legacy of the void's campaign the mission packs and of course the star of the show according to blizzard archon mode well it turned out arcon mode sucked and was a complete failure but co-op was incredibly successful and blizzard was able to rapidly expand on it turning it from a selection of 6 heroes to the current 18 as well as adding in a mutator and prestige system for massive levels of replayability off of a very small development team if the editor they were working with was not as robust flexible and easy to use that opportunity would have left them by the wayside but now i have to admit i've been a bit misleading so far i said that these three pillars provided the support that old school rts had that led them to greatness and that modern releases failed because they didn't have them but that's not exactly it these pillars serve as the catalyst for the true reason what is the most powerful force in all of gaming the critical core of the genre that has been lost and must return for a successful game of course i'm talking about player generated content mod db is a website for modding games with a focus on older titles it's not as big as places like the steam workshop or nexus mods but it's been around for a while slightly more recent games like minecraft have 2 million mod downloads there while some of the bigger titles from the old days like half-life and gta san andreas have almost 9 million mod downloads that is a lot but it's also unsurprising gta and half-life are not just big brands they're cultural juggernauts in gaming what is surprising is that both of these are dwarved by medieval 2 total wars 11 million downloads and command and conquer generals 13 million but why these are both good games but neither are iconic pieces of gaming history rts is specifically well suited towards user made content the top down perspective is significantly less restrictive on creative freedom than the first or third person cameras an rts with a good editor serves as a blank canvas for an inspired creator to build what they want and while the average creation might be pretty mundane there have been multiple instances where entire genres have been spawned from these editors like tower defense and mobas the reason that the focus on custom content was dropped was largely due to emulation developers saw that starcraft 2 launched with a pretty terrible custom game section and determined it wasn't an important part of their own rts but this wasn't an intentional act by blizzard it was the arcade not being ready in time i would argue that the two years it took for a good system to play user generated content with people was starcraft's greatest flaw and that copycats are not following success but have instead been repeating a mistake in the early 2000s rts had a dominant position on the player generated content scene in 2010 with the launch of starcraft 2 that dried up it's not like that creativity and passion to build has disappeared it just went somewhere else because one year later in 2011 minecraft launched and if you ask anybody age 12 to 22 they can firmly tell you that while minecraft was fun on its own the best part was the mods there was an absurd selection of unique game modes that captivated not just audiences but also viewers launching countless careers of minecraft youtubers who explored highlighted and played through these the players were given a powerful tool to create and proceeded to do not only that but also organically market those creations to both each other as well as the wider world with minimal developer input this is proven to work not only in minecraft but in other games as well skyrim is famous for its insane levels of mod ability and it just so happens to be the best-selling rpg ever if you don't include pokemon the best-selling halo game is halo 3 which just so happened to be the one that includes the forge which was by far the best way to create and share custom games in a shooter at the time kerbal space program spent the majority of its life as a bare-bones spaceship simulator brought to life by the easy-to-use c-can mod manager and don't even get me started about half-life mods where people created niche modes like counter-strike and whatever the heck gary's mod is and despite all of these high-profile hits and minecraft being the best-selling game of all time none of them are the most successful game to follow this formula roblox is i'm going to put aside the questionable ethics of the roblox corporation right now people make games already did a great video on that topic instead just focus on the numbers roblox is only a platform for users to create games share them and play each other's creations roblox has 200 million monthly active users at the time i'm writing this roblox has the same number of players as the top three steam games combined this formula of making a solid basis for players to create custom content works it was proven with battlenet in starcraft 1. it was reaffirmed with the custom game section of warcraft 3 it was driven to ridiculous proportions with minecraft and then roblox came and drove the point home rts is a great platform for making this content this content is immensely popular the rts playerbase skews towards older gamers and right now there is a large number of now older gamers who grew up with minecraft the math makes sense throughout the entire history of rts the common theme between the dominant titles has been creator agency there's a fundamental limit to what a development team can do for a game they can only make so much content and after release they're stuck in maintenance mode running around putting out fires and squashing bugs instead of developing new content when the community is empowered the creation process can continue when things are created and promoted they draw in more players and when more players are drawn in some of them will become creators this is the feedback loop that is key for creating a successful title when you log into an rts that's destined to fail you log into a campaign and a 1v1 ladder but for the kings of the genre it's not just these things it's a moba a unit spawner a tower defense a hero arena a sims game it's a cat and mouse mario party and risk it's even this weird touhou anime thing that i absolutely know nothing about but if i did marisa would be best girl don't at me it's an auto battler a card game a tug of war it's mafia bejeweled in a typing game it's a freaking mmo shooter it's a way to be competitive and a way to play with your friends none of these things were made by the developers but all of them were made possible because of the developer the reason that the next rts will fail is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the s in rts stands for the first developer who understands that the s is not strategy but instead stands for sandbox will be the new king of the playground thanks for watching if you want to see for yourself some of the amazing work of the starcraft 2 modding community check out my daily uploads channel giant grant games archives i'm currently playing through legacy of the talderam a fun mod where you play through legacy of the void as a custom told rim faction with both co-op units and a host of new awesome ones i'm also starting the ued ai project whose goal is to turn the braindead starcraft 1ai into an intelligent monster and on twitch for the next couple weekends i'll be playing through the seven player wings of liberty mod with random viewers it's going to be the most chaotic best worst thing i have ever played if you're interested i hope you can check it out and either way i appreciate you taking the time out of your day to be here and i hope the rest of your day is wonderful peace

Channel: GiantGrantGames

Views: 769,215

Keywords:

Id: XehNK7UpZsc

Length: 25min 9sec (1509 seconds)

Published: Sun Mar 20 2022

Reddit Comments

[u/HMO_M001]

Great video! Though it's hard for me not to like it when it validates my love of this game. Thanks, thumbnail!

I think it's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that the ability to mod an RTS is the most important aspect, because I just don't really touch it, despite the fact that I play Melee, Co-Op and campaign all together. But he's right: these things can't exist without a flexible editor, and for people who enjoy campaign (which is the majority of people who download the game) having extensions are a necessity.

[u/Not_The_Real_Odin]

Grant nailed it perfectly in that video.

I got WarCraft 3 when it came out. The campaign was amazing; it introduced me to the mechanics of the game and gave me a decent understanding of how each unit and hero worked. I was eager to try ladder but soon realized the competitive scene just wasn't for me. The thing is, I -loved- to watch competitive games. I would wake up, grab a cup of coffee, and pop over to W3champions and look for a good replay to watch while I enjoyed my coffee. Now days that's replaced with watching the games live on twitch or watching live esports broadcasts, which I still very much enjoy.

The reason I didn't lose interest in WarCraft 3 wasn't the competitive esports scene either, it was exactly as Grant said, the custom games. I didn't play ladder, but it was awesome to hop into a tower defense or an early DotA game with my buddies, or find a new custom campaign that was released. That was what kept me interested in WarCraft 3 and interested in watching the competitive scene.

The competitive scene is important in a game, but it needs viewers to be successful. Just like Grant said, you hook those viewers with the campaign and then keep them interested with the custom community content and they'll love watching competitive games. That's why WarCraft 3 was such an iconic part of my young years and it's exactly what's missing in new RTSs.

edit: a typo

[u/xayadSC]

Great video from GGG as always !

[u/willyolio]

Absolutely true. I follow and watch eSports so I would be considered a "hardcore" fan, but I only very casually dabble in ladder. 99% of my play time in sc1, wc3, and sc2 was in custom games or campaign.

[u/huzure38]

I love watching SC2 esports, but I also want to admit that I got hooked up in the RTS genre by playing a lot of custom games in WC3. In SC2, I didn't play as much as I hoped for because I didn't have any friends purchasing this game to play with. I realized that I played an RTS game mostly from the custom game modes.

Player-generated content is what shapes everyone's imagination beyond limits. It really sets everything up with the world setting and the tools provided by the game. Many old RTS games have that, but they are kinda gone now. While esports and multiplayer are great to establish the marketing, the player-generated content for everyone whether it's for the single-player experience or the multiplayer experience, those do matter so much with how RTS gameplay works.

AOE4 is nice and solid and you might hear their fanbases and viewers saying different things. But I believe the player-generated content lasts much longer than what so-called games cater around e-sports and multiplayer solely. Just having a good RTS game alone won't cut it, but a way to let the community enjoy the world it was built upon is the best in my opinion.

[u/rift9]

Honestly sc2's launch was a miracle the community lasted, battlenet 2.0's ability to interact with others was a ghostland. It's a testament to how well designed the actual game was coinciding with the 2nd launch of Esports through twitch.

[u/macroordie]

Great video, 100% agreed with Grant here. And a reminder that Destiny argued the exact same main point as Grant on this very subreddit.... 9 YEARS AGO. link

The points discussed by the two are why I am a little bit hopeful but still mostly pessimistic about the future FrostGiant game, which seems to be the one that most starcraft fans are hedging their bets on.

FG have taken on the co-op devs from starcraft 2 and have stated (from what I've heard) that the game will release with co-op. Which gives me the impression that they understand to some degree that casual modes like co-op are what caters to the majority of the playerbase, not competitive 1v1/multiplayer.

However, we have been given crumbs and tidbits about some of the starcraft personalities and content creators being consultants to FG. While I don't have a list of all the consultants or anything like that, plus they're all under NDA and therefore can't say much, what I am disappointed by is the fact that a lot of them (can't say most or all since again, I don't know) seem to be current/former pros, casters, and other 1v1/multiplayer-oriented content creators.

This is why I'm pessimistic. I am afraid that they'll get disproportionately more/strong feedback from people who represent and are a part of a minority of the playerbase - a concept that Grant mentions explicitly in this video, by the way. Because let's be real here, out of the current pros, ex-pro/ladder heros, and casters, how many of them honestly care that much about things like campaign, co-op, or custom arcade games? Maybe they played the campaigns when they came out years ago. A lot of them haven't even touched co-op. Maybe a few of them play one or two matches of mutation per week, if that. Maybe a special arcade stream with viewers once in a blue moon.

Obviously my point is not to bash on these guys for not playing a mode that they're not interested in. My point is that I don't want FG to spend so much effort and time on tailoring 1v1, making an extremely robust observer interface and replay system for casting, and brainstorming how to support tournaments that they sacrifice the quality of co-op, campaign, and arcade on release.

Grant makes other minor, but important points in the video, but he and Destiny are, and have been arguing this main point for years. Why shoot yourself in the foot and prevent hundreds of thousands of people from literally creating a huge chunk of your game for you? Don't be like SC2 on release. It was painful.

[u/FizzletitsBoof]

I don't like how you search for ums games in sc2. I want to see a scrolling list of games people are currently making, I don't want a list of ums maps most people usually play that you then join. It's too hard to get people to join some of the more rare maps. I'll decide which games I want to play I could not care less which games are the most popular.

This goes for regular non ladder games too. I still havent figured out a way to do 2v2v2v2 in sc2. In BW you could create a regular non ladder 8 person game and have everyone ally up in game. In sc2 there seemingly isn't a way to get a game like that going. Some of the most fun I had playing bw was 2v2v2v2 killing fields. Because the map wasn't symmetrical it was interesting.

[u/CounterfeitDLC]

I’m hopeful for the Frost Giant game. Ryan Schutter and Kevin Dong gave a lot of attention to the SC2 editor in Patch 5.0 as well as some new items in other casual modes. We’ll see.