|
|
On August 26 2016 08:37 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 02:53 -Archangel- wrote:On August 26 2016 02:30 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I still don't understand why people say this looks more like a moba than an rts. Do you guys even know what a moba is?
Just because it has towers (strong defenders advantage) and a hero unit doesn't mean it's a moba.
It surely has moba design in it, which hopefully makes it more approachable for the masses though. MOBA is a subgenre of RTS. Starcraft, C&C and similar games are in classic RTS subgenre, that is the one with resource collecting and base building. So while this game is a RTS, it is way more MOBA like than classic RTS like. MOBA is barely related to RTS at all - RTS is essentially defined by managing both army and infrastructure, MOBAs involve neither of these. if anything MOBAs are more like fast paced RPGs. on an unrelated note, if this game still only has 1 map i might boycott it purely on principle
RTS = real time strategy
A lot of games fall into this. In the meantime RTT also appeared (Real Time Tactics) but that is just a subgenre of RTS.
Managing both army and infrastructure (through collecting resources) is usually called classic RTS because that was the 95% of RTS that existed before. Today there are all kinds of RTS games and MOBAs are a part of it (it did come out of WC3 using RTS engine and mechanics). And modern MOBAs are still using RTS based engine.
Games like Overwatch are not MOBA, they are same category as Team Fortress and similar games.
|
The only thing I didn't like is, units look a little washed out and not easily recognized in a medium-big sized army. But I sometimes have this problem in sc2 too. Like:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
in the first picture there are marines, marauders and hellions, but it's not easy for me to tell how many marauders or hellions are in which position with a very quick look. I have to look carefully to distinguish them.
in the second picture there are tanks, hellbats, landed viking (?) and some scv's. But again its not easy to tell them apart without looking carefully. I can only recognize scvs by the exhaust fires on their back.
https://gfycat.com/DentalFarawayAfricanelephant
what I instantly see from this gif is, there are small things and big things. Carefully looking, there are two different big things etc. Units are not instantly recognizable in a big army.
|
Norway577 Posts
Hey Mantequilla,
I would say that ingame it looks a little bit different. There's also a bit of a familiarity thing, so after playing a few games with and against the units, you'll be a bit more accustomed to identifying the units.
|
I honestly like the Grath video. Let's wait another few hours!
|
The unit selection and play style reminds me to a large degree of battleforge. They did not have heroes and several other mechanics are also different so can't say the rest is the same.
|
On August 26 2016 00:23 travis wrote:
I think this game looks more moba than RTS. Just from the videos it looks very unforgiving when it comes to mismicro. Unfortunately it would seem to me that the game will be more about micro than about strategy. Kind of like the same as in sc2. And thats ok because sc2 is a great game, though I will admit I was disappointed in how games could be lost in a matter of seconds because of some bad positioning or not paying attention for a second.
It still blows my mind how the Blizzard design team decided that losing the game to a random oracle flying into your base and killing all of your workers could ever be considered "fun".
I hope that this game has more stability to it than that.
|
Norway577 Posts
On August 26 2016 19:42 Incognoto wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 26 2016 00:23 travis wrote:
I think this game looks more moba than RTS. Just from the videos it looks very unforgiving when it comes to mismicro. Unfortunately it would seem to me that the game will be more about micro than about strategy. Kind of like the same as in sc2. And thats ok because sc2 is a great game, though I will admit I was disappointed in how games could be lost in a matter of seconds because of some bad positioning or not paying attention for a second. It still blows my mind how the Blizzard design team decided that losing the game to a random oracle flying into your base and killing all of your workers could ever be considered "fun". I hope that this game has more stability to it than that.
I can say for a fact that this game has these elements that you are hoping for. One of the concepts of gameplay is that throughout the game you will have the opportunity to iterate on your composition and try to come back in the game.
One of the cool stuff about the game is that you are constantly fighting and posturing against the enemy and if you're observant you can learn a lot about what works well just by looking at how better\successful players are playing. This is quite different from SC2, where at 90% of the levels, you have many situations where a huge army just comes and crushes you and the game ends with you having a question mark about what actually happened. There's a lot more feedback in Atlas.
|
"Multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA), also known as action real-time strategy (ARTS), is a genre of strategy video games that originated as a subgenre of real-time strategy, in which a player controls a single character in one of two teams."
i have also seen dota 2 described as rts. if you are not familiar with that game, it is most definitely a style of RTS game.
they still have a lot of room with this game and obviously they can't commit to polish, it is still in alpha stages.
|
On August 26 2016 19:49 TokO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 19:42 Incognoto wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 26 2016 00:23 travis wrote:
I think this game looks more moba than RTS. Just from the videos it looks very unforgiving when it comes to mismicro. Unfortunately it would seem to me that the game will be more about micro than about strategy. Kind of like the same as in sc2. And thats ok because sc2 is a great game, though I will admit I was disappointed in how games could be lost in a matter of seconds because of some bad positioning or not paying attention for a second. It still blows my mind how the Blizzard design team decided that losing the game to a random oracle flying into your base and killing all of your workers could ever be considered "fun". I hope that this game has more stability to it than that. I can say for a fact that this game has these elements that you are hoping for. One of the concepts of gameplay is that throughout the game you will have the opportunity to iterate on your composition and try to come back in the game. One of the cool stuff about the game is that you are constantly fighting and posturing against the enemy and if you're observant you can learn a lot about what works well just by looking at how better\successful players are playing. This is quite different from SC2, where at 90% of the levels, you have many situations where a huge army just comes and crushes you and the game ends with you having a question mark about what actually happened. There's a lot more feedback in Atlas.
and then you look at how better/successful players are playing in sc2 and learn that you cannot stand idle instead of scouting or pressuring into creating a better situation for yourself. ie, not letting them build that huge army that they wanted.
there are tiny little things that you'll never have to worry about or experience in a game that takes those mechanics out entirely or the focus is stripped out.
i agree that there isn't as much feedback, but that doesn't mean it doesn't wholly exist if you know where to look.
if some of the complexity is stripped away and maps being somewhat stagnant or simplistic, then it eventually runs into the situation where once competitive players play each of the heroes at a viable level it becomes more an issue of composition and map strategy like it was in overwatch. or like in sc2 if you cannot play units/builds that are good in the meta you'll lose in certain matchups. whichever happens, you have control over what happens to you, and you can play unorthodox and still surely win somehow, it just a matter of how much control you have and how much focus there is on those aspects involved.
|
Norway577 Posts
I think we can all agree on that in the literal sense of the word, MOBA also encompass RTS's. However, in the practical usage of the word, the fact that you are only controlling a single hero in an RTS control scheme and paradigm is very crucial. More lately it has moved on to encompass games with game mechanics that are similar of those of DOTA.
Because GoA doesn't only have that defining characteristic of controlling a single character, I'd say that it is in the RTS realm. Just like DOW2 is an RTS. Games like World in Conflict and Wargame series are also RTS's although not having basebuilding.
How I would resolve Hero Shooters and 3PS MOBA's is basically just the range element. Battleborn I would say is a hero shooter with MOBA game mechanics.
Is Guardians of Atlas a Classical or Traditional RTS? No. Is it a MOBA in the practical sense of the word? No. Is it a RTS with some MOBA game mechanics? Sure. Does this mean that we can infer that properties of MOBAs are perfectly applicable to GoA? I think it would be a mistake to do so.
|
Norway577 Posts
On August 26 2016 19:55 nanaoei wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 19:49 TokO wrote:On August 26 2016 19:42 Incognoto wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 26 2016 00:23 travis wrote:
I think this game looks more moba than RTS. Just from the videos it looks very unforgiving when it comes to mismicro. Unfortunately it would seem to me that the game will be more about micro than about strategy. Kind of like the same as in sc2. And thats ok because sc2 is a great game, though I will admit I was disappointed in how games could be lost in a matter of seconds because of some bad positioning or not paying attention for a second. It still blows my mind how the Blizzard design team decided that losing the game to a random oracle flying into your base and killing all of your workers could ever be considered "fun". I hope that this game has more stability to it than that. I can say for a fact that this game has these elements that you are hoping for. One of the concepts of gameplay is that throughout the game you will have the opportunity to iterate on your composition and try to come back in the game. One of the cool stuff about the game is that you are constantly fighting and posturing against the enemy and if you're observant you can learn a lot about what works well just by looking at how better\successful players are playing. This is quite different from SC2, where at 90% of the levels, you have many situations where a huge army just comes and crushes you and the game ends with you having a question mark about what actually happened. There's a lot more feedback in Atlas. and then you look at how better/successful players are playing in sc2 and learn that you cannot stand idle instead of scouting or pressuring into creating a better situation for yourself. ie, not letting them build that huge army that they wanted. there are tiny little things that you'll never have to worry about or experience in a game that takes those mechanics out entirely or the focus is stripped out. i agree that there isn't as much feedback, but that doesn't mean it doesn't wholly exist if you know where to look. if some of the complexity is stripped away and maps being somewhat stagnant or simplistic, then it eventually runs into the situation where once competitive players play each of the heroes at a viable level it becomes more an issue of composition and map strategy like it was in overwatch. or like in sc2 if you cannot play units/builds that are good in the meta you'll lose in certain matchups. whichever happens, you have control over what happens to you, and you can play unorthodox and still surely win somehow, it just a matter of how much control you have and how much focus there is on those aspects involved.
I agree with all your concerns, I think they are absolutely valid.
With the feedback, I just meant in-game. Absolutely there is feedback in SC2 and avenues to find it, but these are more things that come from studying out of game and inbetween games. In Atlas a greater proportion of it is built into the playing experience, and in my opinion that makes the game more fun and accessible for certain audiences.
|
On August 26 2016 20:07 TokO wrote:
I think we can all agree on that in the literal sense of the word, MOBA also encompass RTS's. However, in the practical usage of the word, the fact that you are only controlling a single hero in an RTS control scheme and paradigm is very crucial. More lately it has moved on to encompass games with game mechanics that are similar of those of DOTA.
Because GoA doesn't only have that defining characteristic of controlling a single character, I'd say that it is in the RTS realm. Just like DOW2 is an RTS. Games like World in Conflict and Wargame series are also RTS's although not having basebuilding.
How I would resolve Hero Shooters and 3PS MOBA's is basically just the range element. Battleborn I would say is a hero shooter with MOBA game mechanics.
Is Guardians of Atlas a Classical or Traditional RTS? No. Is it a MOBA in the practical sense of the word? No. Is it a RTS with some MOBA game mechanics? Sure. Does this mean that we can infer that properties of MOBAs are perfectly applicable to GoA? I think it would be a mistake to do so.
As always the genres have exceptions inside them. This is an RTS or RTT since the focus is on armies and their composition, not on the hero itself.
Inside of the Dota clone genre there are plenty of heroes with multiple units needing to be controlled. Dota has a lot of them such as Naga Siren (5 illusions), Nature's Prophet (10+ summons) and Meepo (5 clones). So saying it is focused totally on one hero is a bit limiting.
|
As a little sideways question:
Is it better to start playing from day 1 alpha of a game if you want to be decent at it, or wait it to become more stable like until late beta / release?
|
Norway577 Posts
You can use these partial exceptions (I think that these examples can still be considering as 'single' hero that manifests through multiple controllable units) to invalidate the use of single hero as a defining characteristic, but I don't think that is helpful in any way when it comes to discussing how people perceive and use the MOBA term in practice.
@Mantequilla
I'd just jump in and try and see if you have fun, and if it isn't, nobody is forcing you to stay. If you want to be decent at it I'd say having a headstart to get into the mechanics and follow the game throughout the changes is better than waiting. There are skills that you develop that are going to be applicable for the game regardless of where it is in its development.
|
You can now create your Artillery account:
https://forums.artillery.com/
It was previously only open to playtesters. You can reserve your username and read some interesting dev posts on the forums while waiting for the launch.
|
|
|
4 hours left! Hoping that servers will survive the start :D.
Also finally I can say that titans are indeed controlled by players as indicated in that guide. Someone was annoyed earlier that they were AI controlled, but it is indeed a player choosing what to do with it.
|
|
|
thanks a lot 
There are so many useful informations in the forums!
The thread suggested by maybe is pretty remarkable for beginners.
|
Maybe it's just me but gameplay looks very similar to Dawn of War 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.scan.co.uk/images/homepages/gaming/guides_Starcraft-TerranArmy.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lW5ZaV9YWrI/maxresdefault.jpg)
