http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/459739-day9-on-his-current-life-casting-mlg-and-his-game
Guardians of Atlas - Page 3
Forum Index > General Games |
Development ended, game appears to be dead. https://forums.artillery.com/discussion/911/end-of-development -Jinro | ||
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/459739-day9-on-his-current-life-casting-mlg-and-his-game | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
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 Doesn't really have anything specific on the design though. In fact, it sounds like there isn't anything concrete yet. (set in stone rather) | ||
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On June 21 2014 00:10 Grumbels wrote: Doesn't really have anything on the specific design though. In fact, it sounds like there isn't anything concrete yet. 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. | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
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. Well, I'm a bit cynical, because it sounds to me like Artillery is only using the RTS genre as a stepping stone for greater things, i.e. the development of their browser-tech. I'm not really sure about their commitment to the genre. | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
(source) 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. | ||
TaShadan
Germany1960 Posts
| ||
Hider
Denmark9309 Posts
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. 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. | ||
Dyme
Germany523 Posts
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. I think base building is the most fun part of RTS. | ||
Hider
Denmark9309 Posts
On July 11 2014 03:03 Dyme wrote: I think base building is the most fun part of RTS. 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? As I see it, despite all the bad things about SC2, it's still the RTS with by far the best unit control. But is it really the RTS with the best base-building game out there? It would just seem to me that there are alot of games that can do base-building very well, but very few game-developers who know how to incentivize multitasking and create fun micro-interactions. Does Artillery then really needs to be a game about base-building since we already have other dedicated games for that? In my opinion I think it makes a ton more sense for Artillery to focus on making the game fun to play for those who love to control their units and like small micro engagements - Instead of satisfying the niche that want more basemangement (which in these times isn't very many I would argue). | ||
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
On July 11 2014 01:26 TaShadan wrote: Building instantly? rofl no thx... 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. | ||
Hider
Denmark9309 Posts
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. I think if Artillery wants to be a succesufl games amongst casuals, then someone who isn't mechanically sound needs to be able go into the game and be able to play it without being totally stressed out. In Sc2 there are way too many timings and habits too learn; - Build X every X second - Scout for X at time X - Position your units at time X in order to.... but if he does Y you need to.... If Z.... So many things to learn that IMO doesn't make the game more fun for hardcore games (which I would characterize my self as in this context) and creates a giant entrance barrier for casual games. IMO therefore it seems to be correct to focus the game on; 1) A large defenders advantage so it's easy to survive without having refined builds/knowing all timings 2) Macro should be easy so you can have units out on the field without being sound mechanically The skilcap should IMO be created throughout welldesigned micro-interactions. I happen to believe that if the unit interactions are dynamic enough, then there is an inifnite skillcap for controlling your units here, which means back-to-base isn't a neccasry requirement in order to reward mechanical skills. | ||
TaShadan
Germany1960 Posts
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. I have no problem with them removing the build part but high tech being build as fast as low tech units? Sounds strange atleast. Maybe they are able to balance that with a good economy and tech system. | ||
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
| ||
ninazerg
United States7290 Posts
| ||
Noro
Canada991 Posts
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. | ||
Hider
Denmark9309 Posts
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. Yeh Sc2 methodlogy was like: Let's add a bunch of units we think are cool, but that we have no idea whether they actually are fun or not. Artillery methodology: Let's try to tests new concepts/remove old concepts and see whether that makes the game more or less fun. I much prefer the latter methodology. | ||
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
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? 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!) | ||
Hider
Denmark9309 Posts
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. Yeh I loved playing AOE when i was 9 years old and build giant walls, towers and castles and stuff. Was cool, but let's be honest here, base-building in Sc2 doesn't have that charm at all. And I think base-building and a competitive entertaining game (for viewers) doesn't go hand in hand. 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!) I am sure different tactics can be explored/created here without the use of actual bases. I believe the main argument in favor of building bases is that this it's fun to set them up and or do repeteitive tasks. | ||
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
Day[9] once expressed the sentiment that wall-offs in Starcraft II were easy to place compared to Brood War and therefore more powerful. For some unknown reason all maps started to drift to natural bases that could be walled off and the game was never balanced around more open naturals. It wouldn't surprise me if in designing a new RTS he would try to revisit these thematics and come up with alternatives to these common wall-offs that are often criticized for simply cutting out any interaction between players. Infrastructure in Starcraft 2 is already a compromise between simulation games and tactical games. They're not very realistic and highly functional, and they try to do their job of unlocking tech and producing army quickly and unobtrusively. Nevertheless, the developers are always trying to add dynamic potential to base mechanics (see creep, spine crawlers), and it's for a reason: infrastructure is typically highly static, and therefore potentially boring. While expansions are static, they force dynamic play around them. Infrastructure does not, it just stands there doing its job. I can see why developers would want to find different ways of designing unit production. | ||
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On July 11 2014 03:14 Hider wrote:As I see it, despite all the bad things about SC2, it's still the RTS with by far the best unit control. Bollocks. Pure bollocks, who are you to even decide such a thing? There's no such thing as "best" RTS, some RTS are more popular, some are more mechanically demanding, but you can't take any single RTS (or game) and just say, "it's the best at this". It's cringeworthy and it's non-sensical. "fun" is very subjective; as such there isn't really a "best" game out there. Had to get that off my chest. I'm more concerned about getting an open beta so we can try Artillery's game before anything else. | ||
| ||