Guardians of Atlas - Page 3

On June 20 2014 20:49 Incognoto wrote:
Artillery is discussed quite a lot in these interviews:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/459739-day9-on-his-current-life-casting-mlg-and-his-game

On June 21 2014 00:54 Incognoto wrote:


He goes over how the design is being worked on, as well as what sort of stage they're at atm. Plenty enough information for me.

Map objectives experimentation
We added seven special points on the map -- every few minutes a special "artifact" would be spawned at a random point, and the players would need to find which point had the artifact, harvest it, and score a point. The game would end when a team had achieved a certain number of points. We were certain that by adding an unpredicatable element that players would have to react to on the fly, the game would become more dynamic and more fun.

But, we were wrong. The artifact game mode led to all of the battles happening in one or two places on the map. We wanted to use the artifacts as a way to keep players from focusing too much on specific areas of the map. But it turned out that they consumed all of the players' attention, and the entire game took place at or near artifacts. Surprisingly, they soon began to ignore the objectives altogether, and simply battled near them, not for them! This made us realize that we should focus on making battles fun, not on artificially trying to make them happen in certain places.

Tech trees and structures
Lots of real-time strategy games (RTSes) feature base-building as a core element of the game. In these games, structures define the upgrade path or tech tree. For example, you might need to build building A before you can build building B, and only once building B is complete will you be able to build unit X.

For a while, we were sure we'd have to create a structure-based tech tree in order for our game to have strategic depth. But before we got around to creating such a tech tree, we had only a single structure, the HQ. The HQ could build one unit at a time and queue five additional units to be built later. Each player started with one HQ and could build more of them using a worker. This allowed players to build more units closer to the enemy and get their armies to the front lines faster.

However, players began to use buildings to wall themselves in. These players clogged up choke points and "turtled," and the result was that games became boring because players weren't engaging. We tried to punish this behavior by making the HQ more expensive, but the real stroke of genius came later. What if factories built units instantly? Then there wouldn't be any incentive to build more of them. And then, why let the players build any structures at all? So we tried giving players a single base that built units instantly, and it was a hit. Now players concentrate on their armies and battling instead of building up a fortress and turtling themselves in.

But if there aren't any buildings, how is there a tech tree? Well, some of us have never liked the idea of needing to memorize a tech tree, so we decided to make it much simpler. We now have an "Upgrades" panel in the UI where players can upgrade their units by spending resources. There's no ambiguity or special relationships between buildings, and our players like the simplicity a lot. We're especially happy that we were able to solve this problem by side-stepping it, rather than by applying band-aids to a system that was causing us problems.

However, players began to use buildings to wall themselves in. These players clogged up choke points and "turtled," and the result was that games became boring because players weren't engaging. We tried to punish this behavior by making the HQ more expensive, but the real stroke of genius came later. What if factories built units instantly? Then there wouldn't be any incentive to build more of them. And then, why let the players build any structures at all? So we tried giving players a single base that built units instantly, and it was a hit. Now players concentrate on their armies and battling instead of building up a fortress and turtling themselves in.

On July 11 2014 02:32 Hider wrote:


Really interesting concept. I have no idea how this actually plays out, but just the idea of being willing to get rid of old RTS concepts that aren't neccesarily fun, is IMO the correct way to think about game design.

On July 11 2014 03:03 Dyme wrote:

I think base building is the most fun part of RTS.

On July 11 2014 01:26 TaShadan wrote:
Building instantly? rofl no thx...

On July 11 2014 03:30 Reborn8u wrote:


We'll I don't think they are trying to make starcraft 3. They want a much more accessible game that reaches a wider audience. I'm sure some will shy away from it because it offends their starcraft sensibilities, but I'm willing to bet it will be great game when judged by it's own merits.

When I started playing LOL I thought it would be super easy mode compared to starcraft. LOL seems like that until you realize there are so many champions with so many abilites and unique qualities, as well as so many items and synergies between them. It takes a while to learn, let alone building your skill and being able to make plays, CS, team fight, and make good decisions throughout. At the end of the day, the game is fun to play. A lot of Dota players look down on it, because it is a little simpler than Dota. However, look at LOL's popularity, sometime less is more.

I'm sure with Day9 hard at work on it, the game will have some points that are simple and accessible, however the real trick is taking a simple straightforward set of rules and conditions and allowing for great depth of play. Most great games of any genre take minutes to learn and years to master. As long as the game allows for a very high skill cap, the best players will be able to use the tools available to them to stand out and perform well consistently.

Keep an open mind, it might be a hell of a lot of fun and allow for fierce competition as well. Even if it doesn't require base management. Honestly, base management doesn't really reward thinking, it just rewards speed and multitasking. Those skills already reap massive rewards for the player in every other rts situation.

On July 11 2014 03:30 Reborn8u wrote:


We'll I don't think they are trying to make starcraft 3. They want a much more accessible game that reaches a wider audience. I'm sure some will shy away from it because it offends their starcraft sensibilities, but I'm willing to bet it will be great game when judged by it's own merits.

When I started playing LOL I thought it would be super easy mode compared to starcraft. LOL seems like that until you realize there are so many champions with so many abilites and unique qualities, as well as so many items and synergies between them. It takes a while to learn, let alone building your skill and being able to make plays, CS, team fight, and make good decisions throughout. At the end of the day, the game is fun to play. A lot of Dota players look down on it, because it is a little simpler than Dota. However, look at LOL's popularity, sometime less is more.

I'm sure with Day9 hard at work on it, the game will have some points that are simple and accessible, however the real trick is taking a simple straightforward set of rules and conditions and allowing for great depth of play. Most great games of any genre take minutes to learn and years to master. As long as the game allows for a very high skill cap, the best players will be able to use the tools available to them to stand out and perform well consistently.

Keep an open mind, it might be a hell of a lot of fun and allow for fierce competition as well. Even if it doesn't require base management. Honestly, base management doesn't really reward thinking, it just rewards speed and multitasking. Those skills already reap massive rewards for the player in every other rts situation.

On July 11 2014 06:23 Noro wrote:
Not sure why people are worried since it's clear that this is in now way even close to being finalized.

From what I understand they're just trying to test out every possible scenario to figure out the way to make it the most fun.

On July 11 2014 03:14 Hider wrote:


Ok, I am just asking this question to understand where you come from, not to insult you so please don't take this the wrong way:

- If base-building is the most fun part, why are you playing Starcraft and not Sim City or other RTS's?

On July 11 2014 07:00 radscorpion9 wrote:


I think there's a great thrill to be had in building a defensibly sound base. Like in Total Annihilation, where you could make walls and fortify key points to make it impervious to assault, and then lay some artillery behind your short-range cannons to protect you against the enemy's artillery. SimCity on the other hand, when you build a stadium, university, waste treatment plant, or hospitals and schools...they make your citizens happier and allow for more money and more residents, but it doesn't have the same type of dramatic effect as building a Tesla Coil does and watching it fry your enemies, nor does it provide the same type of experience in working out a sound strategic defense plan.

It also makes for more interesting gameplay dynamics, in that you can sabotage your enemy in various ways if they have buildings to sabotage as opposed to their tech being contained entirely as a virtual tech tree. Like blowing up the power plants in red alert, or eliminating the construction yard...or the factories. Besides which its also just satisfying and visually cool to see the end result of constructing an important building (particularly artillery pieces!)