EPTSC2 and most RTS sort of lack that. You start in your little corner of the map and that is the only place that you need to care about for a very long time. You lose when you lose your army and you can’t build it back up before the enemy is in your base, breaking your stuff.
Guardians of Atlas - Page 30
| Forum Index > General Games |
Development ended, game appears to be dead. https://forums.artillery.com/discussion/911/end-of-development -Jinro | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
SC2 and most RTS sort of lack that. You start in your little corner of the map and that is the only place that you need to care about for a very long time. You lose when you lose your army and you can’t build it back up before the enemy is in your base, breaking your stuff. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9384 Posts
But that needn't be the case, honestly if you play BW you have a lot of comeback potential. I don't understand why you keep mentioning BW here because it doesn't make sense. In BW there are a ton of strong timing attacks/all-ins that can kill you as well. You need to have a very great understanding of buillds and how to scout and react to beat them. Surely in later game BW the defenders advantage is higher, but that's not what is being discussed here. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On August 25 2016 04:14 lestye wrote: I dont know about chess, but isnt castling a bandaid just like MSC? It doesn't feel very clear like other chess rules, but its something they had to add in to enforce a defender's advantage. Similiar to what you're describing. Yeah, it's a concession to improve the gameplay. There are a handful of odd rules in chess that nevertheless make the game much better to play. On August 25 2016 04:18 Plansix wrote: The main problem with the SC2 design is the victory condition of “destroy all buildings”. There is no protecting the king or a set of buildings/objectives that can be sacrificed or defended. .. They are part of what allows the comeback to happen, because they are something to fight over that matters. In chess the unique nature of the king allows a player down on material to opt for a risky sacrificial attack on the king, which creates a lot of excitement and opportunities for both players. I think if you remove the king then every chess game becomes a positional grind. But you have such opportunities in Starcraft also, like all-ins or doom drops or trying to set up a position next to the opponent's production facilities. One aspect to chess is the idea of an 'imbalance' in position, like one player having superior material, but the other having more initiative, it's like army vs economy vs tech in Starcraft, but less prone to snowballing. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On August 25 2016 04:24 Hider wrote: I don't understand why you keep mentioning BW here because it doesn't make sense. In BW there are a ton of strong timing attacks/all-ins that can kill you as well. You need to have a very great understanding of buillds and how to scout and react to beat them. Surely in later game BW the defenders advantage is higher, but that's not what is being discussed here. Is that really the case? I suspect that for the average player it's much easier to recover from a timing attack in BW than in SC2. In BW I don't think I'd easily lose to a player worse than me, while in SC2 every couple of games is just a random loss for some annoying reason. Of course BW is not an ideal game here, and there's a reason why Blizzard added so much defender's advantage in WC3 beyond the needs of the game concept, but I think it's much easier to recuperate in BW than in SC2. | ||
|
lestye
United States4163 Posts
Also we need to make the distinction of comeback versus defender's advantage. Very different. Especially if we're talking about worker harass and the like. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
| ||
|
lestye
United States4163 Posts
On August 25 2016 04:54 zeo wrote: So... is this game going to be on Steam or what? I don't think so. Woudnt it be on steamdb or something if they were planning on it? Alpha seems to be separate from Steam. | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
From the trailer, it also looks like the micro is closer to SC2 than WC3, which is a shame. All in all, I'm disappointed. I'll likely still play it, but meh. I just want a neo-WC3. Is that so much to ask?! | ||
|
Atimo
France38 Posts
EDIT : and fire rate is low too for most units we see | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey397 Posts
On August 25 2016 05:24 Spaylz wrote: Watched the trailer, I was pretty underwhelmed. They seem to have steered pretty far from the original idea of 2013. They didn't have much of an idea in 2013. They said that they would experiment with lots of different things until they get it right. Although I remember Day9 saying right after the first announcement in 2013 that the game would not play anything like StarCraft and that it would have less macro and more micro so it is not far off from their initial vision. It looks like everyone assumed that since Day9 was involved, he would want to make another StarCraft. | ||
|
Atimo
France38 Posts
https://gfycat.com/DentalFarawayAfricanelephant | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey397 Posts
https://gfycat.com/@guardiansofatlas/detail/GlamorousLavishInsect | ||
|
Atimo
France38 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
I really hope there is comeback potential in the game and i also hope that the game length is about 20-30 minutes. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
The team colors comment makes sense in that gif I think because you have one team that is blue and then one faction is blue, but it's on the opposing team in that video :D | ||
|
mammuluk
Italy94 Posts
Even if the macro part seems - let's say little... | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
| ||
|
mammuluk
Italy94 Posts
| ||
| ||
