| Forum Index > General Games |
Development ended, game appears to be dead. https://forums.artillery.com/discussion/911/end-of-development -Jinro | ||
|
Weerwolf
75 Posts
If there are only a thousand people active at a time (and recent games like Grey Goo and Act of Agression have shown that this is a realistic number for new games), won't we be waiting a long time before being able to play? In the current state of games, if you arent playing within 5 minutes, chances are you arent playing at all since you stop and do something else. Waiting times longer than that are really not passable anymore for a lot of players. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On October 15 2015 18:24 Hider wrote: Here is my issue with Project Atlas approach. I am sure that when they playtested 3v3s it was all super awesome because everyone would be really polite and communicate efficiently. However, the experience is not gonna be anything like that when you get a bigger playerbase. I absolutely despise the teamplay experience, but it's a neccesity for the teamfight/outplay-dynamic. But in an RTS, it just seems completetely unnecesary. i agree, but again it's not a fully fledged RTS from what i've read.. it's more of an RTS mixed with a moba, you choose units from a deck sort of thing.. day9 described it as a heartstone rts, where each race has specific units then there are "neutral" units that every race can choose to use, making a lot of weird situations. so maybe it might be better? idk, we'll see when we get beta or actual gameplay videos | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9396 Posts
On October 15 2015 22:43 Endymion wrote: i agree, but again it's not a fully fledged RTS from what i've read.. it's more of an RTS mixed with a moba, you choose units from a deck sort of thing.. day9 described it as a heartstone rts, where each race has specific units then there are "neutral" units that every race can choose to use, making a lot of weird situations. so maybe it might be better? idk, we'll see when we get beta or actual gameplay videos Well you can still build units so you control multiple units at once. But you can only choose between 3 (and a hero unit I think). In my opinion the teamgame aspect is a neccasary evil for games where you control control one "unit". But when you control more units, for instance as in Wc3, I highly prefer soloq. Sure teamgames can be fun if you have great communication but that's almost never the case in soloq. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
If you rely on soloqueue that is obviously a different matter then. Still, typically soloqueue works fine as long as you aren't a toxic person yourself and you are somewhat decent at the game (so you don't play with the absolutely lowest skill people due to mmr) | ||
|
SnowfaLL
Canada730 Posts
| ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On October 15 2015 23:05 Hider wrote: Well you can still build units so you control multiple units at once. But you can only choose between 3 (and a hero unit I think). In my opinion the teamgame aspect is a neccasary evil for games where you control control one "unit". But when you control more units, for instance as in Wc3, I highly prefer soloq. Sure teamgames can be fun if you have great communication but that's almost never the case in soloq. 3 unit types is such a pathetic number, even 9 with all 3 players is bad. There is really no real surprise here, tech rushing or tech switching a game like this will offer. At best it will be a harder 3v3 MOBA where players get to control your side spawning troops, at worst it will be a casual monobattles like game but with 3 units per player. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On October 16 2015 04:45 -Archangel- wrote: 3 unit types is such a pathetic number, even 9 with all 3 players is bad. There is really no real surprise here, tech rushing or tech switching a game like this will offer. At best it will be a harder 3v3 MOBA where players get to control your side spawning troops, at worst it will be a casual monobattles like game but with 3 units per player. BW protoss had 9 combat units, and 1 of those was rarely used. Zerg had 10, with 2-3 rarely used. Terran had 11, but 2 were rarely used, and if you removed bio you would still theoretically still have a functioning race with only 7 units. A "complete race" of 9 combat unit types is definitely doable. | ||
|
nanaoei
3358 Posts
can't ride the wave it created on its own for long. as a 3v3 session game that is strictly RTS and is designed around that, it's new. where can they take that though? is the engine/framework strong? would it require ground-up to rework how certain interactions work? I'm sure all of these things are in consideration, but even the best game development teams fall short of their own expectations or goals because they miss the bigger picture in short. since it seems their focus on design is set in place, I'd love to see where they take it from game beta, to game release, to years after it's been featured and reviewed for the first time. will I see myself playing atlas in 2017/2018? or will it be an investment that was just fun for a while? these are certainly questions that gamers ask themselves more these days while there are quite a few choices out there (special case otherwise for RTS) and a lot of kickstarter money thrown around. #1 rule is NO promises and from the consumer's POV, the game is responsible for at least a good portion of filling out your expectations of it. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On October 16 2015 06:39 -NegativeZero- wrote: BW protoss had 9 combat units, and 1 of those was rarely used. Zerg had 10, with 2-3 rarely used. Terran had 11, but 2 were rarely used, and if you removed bio you would still theoretically still have a functioning race with only 7 units. A "complete race" of 9 combat unit types is definitely doable. Not if players cannot share each other units, as in build stuff you ally picked as well. Actually the Archone mode of Sc2 has more chance to be the next mass casual RTS, especially if they can get more tournaments around that. | ||
|
nanaoei
3358 Posts
On October 16 2015 07:07 -Archangel- wrote: Not if players cannot share each other units, as in build stuff you ally picked as well. Actually the Archone mode of Sc2 has more chance to be the next mass casual RTS, especially if they can get more tournaments around that. if they can do that, they need to add special interactions or effects or something. like a sort of RTS light show. make something very obviously require two people to concentrate their efforts and see progress on. combos, curveballs, additional objectives, etc. it's not likely that any of that is going to happen by any stretch of the imagination. the only thing I feel they'll do with archon mode is stuff some money into side-tournaments and proleague trying it out as a filler game(s) in bo5/7/11 format. at the end of the day, it's still in the shell of a 1v1 scenario and so there's not so much you can do aside from harass or do unique strategies. as it is I know a few people who are frustrated with how they have to play with another person which is the exact opposite of what the game mode is supposed to be about. it feels awkward and clunky to them, which is a fault of the player themselves, but how are you going to change their minds If they don't want to keep trying it? | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On October 16 2015 07:07 -Archangel- wrote: Not if players cannot share each other units, as in build stuff you ally picked as well. Actually the Archone mode of Sc2 has more chance to be the next mass casual RTS, especially if they can get more tournaments around that. Why? It is perfect for casual to only care about 3 different unit typed and a hero. I actually think this is a genius move overall. Obviously it really depends on the general unit and hero design. The point is to play with friends, EVERYONE has at least one friend who plays the same game i would imagine, so three players per team is a pretty smart move as well. Archon mode is imo still WAY too hard for casuals to appreciate. Sure, you can play with your hardcore sc2 friend, but what happens if you wanna start playing it with a friend of yours who has no sc2 background? Yeah glhf | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16765 Posts
On October 16 2015 07:27 The_Red_Viper wrote: Why? It is perfect for casual to only care about 3 different unit typed and a hero. I actually think this is a genius move overall. Obviously it really depends on the general unit and hero design. it really depends on how much fun the game is .. and there is really not enough detail to decide ahead of time if its great, garbage or somewhere in between. as u alluded ... the proof will be in the pudding  its interesting to contrast the big talk from this company more than two years ago with current comments from Day9 about their small team. initially, they were creating this browser gaming development platform on their way to making the X-Station and Play-Box obsolete. Now it appears they are just scrambling to crank out 1 game. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On October 15 2015 23:05 Hider wrote: Well you can still build units so you control multiple units at once. But you can only choose between 3 (and a hero unit I think). In my opinion the teamgame aspect is a neccasary evil for games where you control control one "unit". But when you control more units, for instance as in Wc3, I highly prefer soloq. Sure teamgames can be fun if you have great communication but that's almost never the case in soloq. From my experience in 2v2 in broodwar and warcraft3(i was good at it) is that communication isnt the key really. If both players know what to do it comes natural. For example: Me and my friend played T/P in broodwar. We produce 10zealots and 15marines and walk towards an opponent. The other opponent has speedlings behind us(not rly close but still visionclose) and what we do without any communication whatsoever, I move my zealots backwards while my friend moves his marines behind my zealots and we move towards the guy behind us. The lings move away and we proceed towards the first guy we went against(Zealots first, marines second) and we repeat this process several times without any communication atall. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9396 Posts
On October 16 2015 00:32 The_Red_Viper wrote: Well i think they chose 3 people per side because it is rather easy to find two friends to play with. If you rely on soloqueue that is obviously a different matter then. Still, typically soloqueue works fine as long as you aren't a toxic person yourself and you are somewhat decent at the game (so you don't play with the absolutely lowest skill people due to mmr) I think teamgames are overvalued in the sense that the reason more people play CS:GO and MOBA's, is not because they are teamgames but because they are easier to learn. Here is a thought experiment: Imagine if CS:GO was a 1v1 game.... That would make the experience completely different in every single way! Hence the teamplay adds depth to the game besides the communication/coordiation-aspect However, for an RTS the experience is not completely different. The only thing that changes when you go from solo to teamgame in an RTS are: 1. Communication/coordination 2. You can blame team-mates instead of balance (?) 3. You can balance the gamemode around one player only having to control few different units at once As I see it, the 3rd element is an advantage in that it makes the game easier to learn. However, when it instead means that you have to spend time trying to coordinate with strangers, I think the level of frustration will increase. I imagine a 1v1-mode where you - in the "pick unit phase" - could choose 5-6 different units with "simple control" to be the best solution. Simple control in the sense that you don't have to shift between control groups to use abilities, and that macro is insanely easy so you can focus on controlling the units. For example: Me and my friend played T/P in broodwar. We produce 10zealots and 15marines and walk towards an opponent The issue doens't come when you play with a friend. I also played alot of Wc3 and Sc2 2v2 with a friend and I loved it. The issue, however, arises when 3v3 becomes the default mode and you play soloq (hence get matched up against strangers). In those scenarios trying to coordinate and talk strategy is almost always a bad experience, and it's an unnecesity in an RTS game. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
I already told you that it should be fairly easy to have at least one friend to play with, which means 2/3 of the team are in your control. This isn't 5vs5 where soloqueue is a lot more random than if you decrease the number of players. Which is why i think 3vs3 is the perfect number here, it allows for easy teamplay with friends AND soloqueue still isn't too bad (if one player can somewhat carry in atlas) I don't think that teamgames are overvalued at all, easy to learn surely is the biggest factor, but right after that comes (imo) if the game allows to play with your friends. I think ATLAS tries to nail both aspects with their game. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9396 Posts
I don't quite get your point tbh. We don't even know the real objectives of ATLAS yet so your statement of "rts games don't change when going teamgame" are weird to me. In an RTS there is no fundamental difference between 1v1 and 3v3 games in that you can let the 1v1 players control more units at once. So rather than 3 players controlling 10 units at once, one player can control 30 units at once and the gamedynamic will be similar. However, that's not possible if your limited to controlling one character at one point in time (as you are in an FPS game). In MOBA's, the gameplay is so spellheavy that that's not realistic either. However when you have relatively simple units with at most one ability each, a 1v1 gameplay mode where each player controls many units at once is imo ideal. If Atlas looks for slightly more complicated unit control so the units are "semi-heroes", you could make a point for it to be a teamgame. However, then my issue is that it doesn't differentiate itself enough from MOBA's. I think it is important that it becomes an RTS that is heavily inspired by MOBA's, rather than it becoming a MOBA with RTS-elements. but right after that comes (imo) if the game allows to play with your friends. Why not just add an archon-mode instead? This way you can play with your friends, and it doesn't bother those who despise having to rely on strangers. When the majority of people play soloq, it's a sign that games don't become succesful because you can play with your friends. They become succesful because they are easy to learn and fun to play (after you learned it). Which is why i think 3vs3 is the perfect number here, it allows for easy teamplay with friends AND soloqueue still isn't too bad (if one player can somewhat carry in atlas) This really depends on the unit-design and I think that is the most important factor that decides whether it will succeed or not. If they produce micro-interactions that are very fun w/ a high skillcap, I think the game can do very well. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
You still have to distribute your attention, one action at a time. Which is also why that whole "look at archon mode to see what is possible in LOTV!!" is bs. So far we don't know the objectives of ATLAS, so it is hard to say if 1vs1 would even be possible (attention wise). As i said before, we don't even know the mechanics of the game yet, so it is hard to argue for/against archon mode. Archon mode simply doesn't work with every game, imagine lol with an archon mode, it simply would suck because the game isn't designed that way. I also agreed with you that easy to learn is the most important thing, but teamgames come (imo  ) right after that. Also teamgames =/= only play with friends, there are other factors which make teamgames easier to get into. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
on a side note, i think 3 people is definitely the optimal number for a casual rts team game. it's a good balance between feeling less pressure to have to be performing well yet still being able to have a huge impact on the outcome of the game. of the team modes in sc2 i enjoy 3v3 the most and play it most often, even though the maps are bad. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9396 Posts
I don't know if i would agree with you here. Sure in theory you could control every single unit yourself, but you still cannot controll every single unit AT ONCE. You still have to distribute your attention, one action at a time. Well but that's a skillcap thing. If your bad at the game you cannot control very many units at once. But if you can constantly get better at that AND further improving feels rewarding --> Good thing. With regards to learning curve, the most important thing is that new players get into relatively close games where they can focus on (attempting) to micro their units without worrying about too much other stuff + mistakes aren't super punishable (against similar skilled opponents). I would accomplish that with the following components: 1. High defenders advantage (MOBA-towers) 2. Removal of neccesity of control groups. You shuld be able to use abilities by pressing "QWERAST" without having any units selected. 3. Almost no macro requirements 4. Make sure that the micro interactions have a good amount of counterplay so we see nothing WOL-Fungal-like unforgivingness. Sure some players may despise having to control many units at once and will prefer MOBA's, however you cannot satisfy everyone at once. And given how large the MOBA-player base is, I am sure that there is a target group of 10-15 millions whom will enjoy controlling multiple units at once (where Sc2 isn't ideal either due to bad micro interactions, learning curve, no F2P etc.). My point here is that it makes more sense for Atlas to be a game where you control larger armies instead of small armies w/ hero-like units (and make a teamgame out of that). I think you end up satisfying neither the RTS-target group nor the MOBA-only-target group by making this a 60% MOBA and 40% RTS (rather than 70% RTS and 30% MOBA). The latter target group will still prefer playing a MOBA and controlling only 1 hero w/ abilities, and the former will probably stick to Starcraft (though again, this does depend on how well the game is designed). | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
If the game is designed that a lot of units HAVE TO act simultaneously (like in mobas, csgo, teamgames) your 1vs1 mode simply doesn't work that well. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Sharp
Jaedong vs Mini
Wardi Open
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
