|
|
I was talking about "multitasking" here. Humans simply CANNOT multitask. You can execute one task at a time and get faster, but you will never execute a lot of tasks simultaneously.
It depends on whether multitasking is a skillcap-element (you are rewarded if you get better) or a learning curve (you will auto-die if you cannot do it well).
The solution is to add small rewards for multitasking which is very unlike what Widow Mines does in Sc2. That unit is very unforgiving to play against which doesn't add for fun multitasking.
Anyway, I don't think an RTS 3v3 is per defintion without multitasking (they will have less in general, but you don't remove it). What matters the most is how the game is designed. Does it have strong mobile hit and run units or are the units more deathballish?
If the former is the case, you will see action all over the map regardless of whether its a 3v3 or 1v1.
Anyway, I think you overestate how big of an issue multitasking can be. When you play against bad players they will generally look to attack one location, and if matchmaking works --> That's good. But if you look at higher level play, I think alot of people enjoy small skirmishes all over the map (hence why people don't like the deathball in Starcraft).
To make my point clear: Multitasking can be an issue, but that's a consequence of bad unit-design (generally cloaked units should not be in an RTS). However, well-designed multitaskbased-interactions can make for an awesome skillcap.
The people who don't like multitasking at all are probably also very unlikely to enjoy the RTS-micro (controlling multiple units at once), and Atlas will never have a chance to reach that target group anyway.
TLDR: Atlas must know it's target group and not go for a middle-of-the road approach.
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.
Well I was talking about my ideal RTS with large armies. In that game an Archon-mode could make a lot of sense (if you wanted the social experience).
|
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.
That's only true for team games of current RTS games that are designed to be 1v1. However, if you design an RTS from ground up to be a team game, you can make it fundamentally different from 1v1 RTSs. They have already said how they designed their factions based on the fact that it will be a 3v3 game. They have also said that objectives and resource collection requires more than 1 played and implied that there are too many points of interest at a given time, which makes it impossible for a single player to control. It's not like they are making another SC2 and simply dividing all the things a player does in SC2 by three.
I agree with you that unit design will be crucial for it to work as a team game. If each player has a specific role, then the set of units that he/she controls should all be interesting, engaging and rewarding to micro. You can't have one of the players controlling a squad consisting of bland units.
|
That's only true for team games of current RTS games that are designed to be 1v1. However, if you design an RTS from ground up to be a team game, you can make it fundamentally different from 1v1 RTSs. They have already said how they designed their factions based on the fact that it will be a 3v3 game. They have also said that objectives and resource collection requires more than 1 played and implied that there are too many points of interest at a given time, which makes it impossible for a single player to control. It's not like they are making another SC2 and simply dividing all the things a player does in SC2 by three.
You can still replicate the same thing by making it a 1v1. In a 3v3 the 3 players will probably start at seperate location, but that's not a difference that has to be there (by definition). My point is that if you want to, you can make the 1v1 dynamic similar to the 3v3 dynamic.
With regards to 2 players being at one location, what they probably mean is that you need a larger army size to take down a specific position --> you need help from their allies (can you link me to where it exactly was said).
To make my self clear: It's not like I don't see advantages with teamgame approach, but those advantages will only be advantages for those who generally will prefer MOBA's over an RTS anyway.
which makes it impossible for a single player to control.
Well if its designed to be a 3v3 game so one player doesn't have enough units to defend one base alone --> then it's indeed impossible.
However, if it was designed around being a 1v1 game and players had a high enough unit count to control multiple bases --> Not impossible.
|
This is the part I'm talking about:
The systems in Atlas are built to account for this. Some objectives or tactics need only one player. Others require all three. Multiple simultaneous points of interest would be impossible to manage as a single player, even one with 300 actions per minute. But with teams, players can plan out how to divvy up resource collection and attacks on multiple fronts. We’ve designed units so the three players together form a logical “single race” with each player controlling ⅓ of the forces. In other words, team based combos and strategy are a core part of the game.
So we can assume that there are more things going on at the map than in a normal RTS and those things are specifically designed with the fact that it is a team game in mind. It's not only about the number of units each player can control (we don't know that yet), it's about the number of points you have to pay attention at one point. They may have designed maps, objectives and units in a way that even a player who is excellent at multitasking simply can't manage.
|
On October 16 2015 23:36 _Spartak_ wrote:This is the part I'm talking about: Show nested quote +The systems in Atlas are built to account for this. Some objectives or tactics need only one player. Others require all three. Multiple simultaneous points of interest would be impossible to manage as a single player, even one with 300 actions per minute. But with teams, players can plan out how to divvy up resource collection and attacks on multiple fronts. We’ve designed units so the three players together form a logical “single race” with each player controlling ⅓ of the forces. In other words, team based combos and strategy are a core part of the game. So we can assume that there are more things going on at the map than in a normal RTS and those things are specifically designed with the fact that it is a team game in mind. It's not only about the number of units each player can control (we don't know that yet), it's about the number of points you have to pay attention at one point. They may have designed maps, objectives and units in a way that even a player who is excellent at multitasking simply can't manage.
Well as long as the rewards are balanced properly, I think that system can easily work as a 1v1. I don't agree that you have to be able to multitask perfectly in order to be able to play the game. If you need more than 300+ APM to play optimally that sounds like a skillcap-thing to me.
Another question: What's even the point of having teammates attack at a different location where you yourself are not involved? For instance, if i I play toplane in LOL, it adds nothing to my playing experience that the botlane is having a fight. All it does is to add a potential moment of frustration if botlane feeds.
So unless you
(a) fight together or
(b) coordinate attacks together,
the teamplay experience will be pointless. And again, both of those areas require lots of coordination, which is something that's gonna be a bad experience when you soloq.
They may have designed maps, objectives and units in a way that even a player who is excellent at multitasking simply can't manage.[
That goes off my point. Yes you can design specific parts of the RTS so it doesn't work as an 1v1 given the specific design. But if you adjust some of the numbers it can work fine as a 1v1. The point here is that the overall game-dynamic can be similar (if you balance the numbers).
|
The thing is, he says even if you have that much APM, it would still be impossible to control. Let's take MOBAs for example. Like you said, it won't be realistic to control all the heroes. Game wouldn't work that way, it won't be a good "skillcap" thing, it will simply be no fun because you will have no degree of control no matter how good you are. If the game has about as many things to do as a traditional RTS but divided the 200 food between 3 players, then you'd be right but if there are too many things to do for even the best players and the units are designed in a way that you simply can't control all the units in 3 squads, then I think it will work.
|
The thing is, he says even if you have that much APM, it would still be impossible to control. Let's take MOBAs for example. Like you said, it won't be realistic to control all the units. Game wouldn't work that way, it won't be a good "skillcap" thing, it will simply be no fun because you will have no degree of control no matter how good you are.
Yes you are correct that if this game has MOBA-like level of unit control --> It needs to be a teamgame.
However, as I argued previously, that doesn't differentiate Project Atlas enough from MOBA's. Why would anyone switch from LOL/DOTA/Heroes to Project Atlas if it feels similar to a MOBA?
Hence I firmly believe that the very general feeling of controlling units should match that of Starcraft (without all of the control groups nonsense). The competition in the area of a fast-paced RTS with MOBA-inspired elements is nonexistant. All "tactical" RTS games have been super slow, which makes for a low skillcap and bad micro interactions.
And when units are relatively simple (with maybe one ability), the +300 APM becomes a skillcap thing. For instance attacking multiple locations at once feels great in Starcraft, and it also feels fun if you have skillbased (simple) tools to defend with.
But ofc if defending a location requires detection and overly babysitting, multitasking becomes too complicated. So ofc this depends on the unit-design.
Defining MOBA-unit control vs RTS-unit control
The difference here is how controlling multiple units at once scales with difficulty. In a MOBA controlling 2 units at once wil be roughly 2 times as difficult as controlling 1 at one. However in an RTS each extra unit you need to control only makes it marginally more difficult.
Hence with MOBA-like unit-control you cannot have players control more than a few units at once which puts restrictions on the tactics/strategy of the game if it is a 1v1.
However, with RTS-unit control you can have players control 50-100 units at once, which makes the expereince more ideal for it to be a 1v1.
|
Hider you don't seem to get the point.
Let's look at lol, we remove every single spell out of the game and make it purely a lasthit on 5 lanes game.
The apm required to do it perfectly might not be high, but you still would need to pay attention on all 5 lanes for it to work => it is not possible as a 1vs1 game.
It isn't about apm, it is about attention.
edit: this isn't about unit design all that much, it is about the objectives of the game.
|
The apm required to do it perfectly might not be high, but you still would need to pay attention on all 5 lanes for it to work => it is not possible as a 1vs1 game.
You are not making a distinction tween MOBA-level of unit control vs RTS level of unit control. See the above post for clarification.
I advocated for RTS-unit control in all of my posts, so I find it ironic how you can say I am not getting the point.
this isn't about unit design all that much, it is about the objectives of the game.
Unit-design has an impact on how punished you are for not controlling each unit individiually. In a MOBA that punishment is huge. In an RTS, it's much less. Hence whether multitasking feels fun (as a reward but not a neccesity) or not depends on the unit-design. ¨
Further, unit-design also has an impact on how complicated the multitasking can be. For instance when you need to get your observers in position before you can kill a widow mine, it's more likely to become an unfun experience.
|
So when we have a rts which is a lot about attention and precise army control it isn't "rts control" anymore. Yeah if we define it like that sure.
|
On October 17 2015 00:17 The_Red_Viper wrote:
So when we have a rts which is a lot about attention and precise army control it isn't "rts control" anymore. Yeah if we define it like that sure.
I am talking about how difficulty scales with unit-count, where there is a significant difference between how Stimmed Marines and MOBA-hero(es) scales. Controlling 50 Marines is not 50 times more difficult than controlling 1 Marine.
The more abilities you give a "unit" (and the lower cooldowns) --> it requires more babysitting --> It scales differently in difficulty when you need to control more than one at the time.
And if I want to send some Marines to deal with a drop, I don't have to babysit them super hard. Instead I am rewarded for spreading the Marines out a bit and focus firing the drop. But when A+T-moved, the Marines will do pretty decently by them selves.
|
"Difficulty" is pretty vague. I would say "moba like control" is about precision and attention.
It doesn't matter if you control 1 or 2 or 10 units. If it is 10 you simply divide the hero dmg and hp into 10 different units.
sc2 like rts games don't care much about losing 5 marines here or 5 marines there, but that is because of the game mechanics/objectives, not because marines are designed like marines.
You seem to think that an rts which is more about that attention and precision is more like a moba and it shouldn't be called "rts control", i disagree.
And for the love of god, stop editing your posts, nobody reads the edits anyway, you do this all the time and then wonder why someone doesn't address it in his post.
|
On October 17 2015 00:27 The_Red_Viper wrote:
"Difficulty" is pretty vague. I would say "moba like control" is about precision and attention.
It doesn't matter if you control 1 or 2 or 10 units. If it is 10 you simply divide the hero dmg and hp into 10 different units.
sc2 like rts games don't care much about losing 5 marines here or 5 marines there, but that is because of the game mechanics/objectives, not because marines are designed like marines.
You seem to think that an rts which is more about that attention and precision is more like a moba and it shouldn't be called "rts control", i disagree.
And for the love of god, stop editing your posts all the time, nobody reads the edits anyway, you do this all the time and then wonder why someone doesn't address it in his post.
When I edit my post I don't change my point. Instead I only try to be a bit more precise.
With regards to difficulty as a concept. Look at what happens if you amove a hero to a fight in a MOBA? It's basically useless.(10% of max efficiency at best)
What happens when you a-move Marines? They still do decently (50% of max efficiency maybe)
Can you seriously not see that there is a huge difference here? You can call that difference whatever you want but then we are just arguing about semantics.
|
I already said the exact same thing 20 minutes ago with my lol example and lasthitting.
I simply don't agree that "moba like control" and "rts like control" are useful terms, because it isn't about the unit design, it is about the game design.
Which is why i said that if ATLAS is designed to require more attention and precise movement you cannot simply make it 1vs1 because it would not work (which is what you argued from the beginning, you want it to be 1vs1)
So i am not really sure why you would tell me that i don't understand you, when all i did is arguing your (imo flawed) point.
|
On October 17 2015 00:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I already said the exact same thing 20 minutes ago with my lol example and lasthitting.
I simply don't agree that "moba like control" and "rts like control" are useful terms, because it isn't about the unit design, it is about the game design.
Which is why i said that if ATLAS is designed to require more attention and precise movement you cannot simply make it 1vs1 because it would not work (which is what you argued from the beginning, you want it to be 1vs1)
So i am not really sure why you would tell me that i don't understand you, when all i did is arguing your (imo flawed) point.
To avoid confusion, can you just answer the question: Is there a difference between how you are rewarded for controlling multiple units at once in a MOBA vs an RTS?
(assuming we hypothetically speaking could control multiple units/heroes in a MOBA).
|
My problem is that you try to pin point exactly what should be defined as moba and what should be defined as rts.
But sure, if we say sc2= rts then there is obviously a big difference, just like i said in posts before.
My point is that if we change this and make "it more rewarding" to controll multiple units it doesn't become a moba (which is kinda what you imply imo)
PS: In dota you already can control multiple units at once, not every moba is like lol.
PS2: I am not sure if this whole discussion even belongs here though, maybe we should change it to pms
|
My point is that if we change this and make "it more rewarding" to controll multiple units it doesn't become a moba (which is kinda what you imply imo)
Well I said 60% MOBA and 40% RTS, so to be fair I never said it fully becomes a MOBA. I obviously implied it gets closer to feeling like a MOBA, which makes it compete more w/ Heroes/LOL/DOTA.
Sc2 is the only game that has some type of fast-paced units where you control a high number of units at once (plus units feel responsive).
But the game has many other chracteristica in terms of learning curve, macrofocus, control group compexity, snowball-effect and lack of objective focus. In those areas I want Atlas to MOBA'nize the genre. (well... besides the snowball effect - that sucks in both genres)
If Atlas did that, it would be a completely different game from anything else.
Going back to my original point
With RTS-control (unlike MOBA-control), mutlitasking feels more enjoyable for both players because it becomes a reward and not a must. You don't auto-lose the game if you look away for a second.
Hence with proper unit-design I don't see any reason to believe there won't be a large enough target group who will enjoy fighting over multiple locations at once in a 1v1 game.
|
its funny reading everyone put a lot of carts in front of a lot of horses 
getting back to the basics: i wonder who is going to publish this game
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
