|
|
On August 27 2016 01:17 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 01:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 27 2016 00:56 _Spartak_ wrote:
I think this was one of the main problems for SC2 against LoL and DotA 2. adding units fucks balance. no F2P RTS has ever been commercially viable in the genre's 20+ year history. SC2 has come closer to offering "pay as you go elements" than any other RTS title with Nova and that slimey Zerg leader guy for $5. you could also criticize ATVI for not using the WoW model... $15/month and $50 expansions. AAA MOBAs , AAA MMOs , and AAA RTSs have different revenue models. I don't think that's fair to say since F2P has only been part of the market for the last 5 years. I don't think that was his point regardless, his point was that microtransactions gives them to incentive to keep adding stuff to the game, as opposed to holding off implementing features/units to put in the back of the box of an expansion.
SC2 has microtransactions.
off topic discussion about ATVI making money on RTS games.
+ Show Spoiler +
let's compare LoL to WoW then. Riot has failed with LoL because WoW made more money an an annual basis. Riot should be charging $15 a month just like WoW and have $50 expansions every 2 years just like WoW. reductio ad absurdum.
ATVI has done a better job than any one generating revenue on an RTS game. the AAA RTS no longer exists because no one can generate enough revenue to justify a AAA investment. if you are going to say "they did wrong" you're going ot have to create a comprehensive proposal otherwise you are just a polemicist.
|
i think RTS skins are really difficult to do correctly, but they need to be explored to fund stuff like the compendium. for instance, i thought the zergling skin in sc2 (for multiplayer use) was super obtrusive and made counting lings impossible, so not being able to disable it hurt the game.. However, if you just had a different model hatchery/lair/hive i think it would obstruct the game less since it would be around units less.. regardless, there needs to be an option to disable it in competitive play
|
On August 27 2016 02:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 01:17 lestye wrote:On August 27 2016 01:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 27 2016 00:56 _Spartak_ wrote:
I think this was one of the main problems for SC2 against LoL and DotA 2. adding units fucks balance. no F2P RTS has ever been commercially viable in the genre's 20+ year history. SC2 has come closer to offering "pay as you go elements" than any other RTS title with Nova and that slimey Zerg leader guy for $5. you could also criticize ATVI for not using the WoW model... $15/month and $50 expansions. AAA MOBAs , AAA MMOs , and AAA RTSs have different revenue models. I don't think that's fair to say since F2P has only been part of the market for the last 5 years. I don't think that was his point regardless, his point was that microtransactions gives them to incentive to keep adding stuff to the game, as opposed to holding off implementing features/units to put in the back of the box of an expansion. SC2 has microtransactions. off topic discussion about ATVI making money on RTS games. + Show Spoiler +
let's compare LoL to WoW then. Riot has failed with LoL because WoW made more money an an annual basis. Riot should be charging $15 a month just like WoW and have $50 expansions every 2 years just like WoW. reductio ad absurdum.
ATVI has done a better job than any one generating revenue on an RTS game. the AAA RTS no longer exists because no one can generate enough revenue to justify a AAA investment. if you are going to say "they did wrong" you're going ot have to create a comprehensive proposal otherwise you are just a polemicist.
You missed the point entirely. It's about being able to support the game instead of holding back stuff for an expansion release. Like, instead of releasing in-game tournaments for a 40 dollar expansion packs, you release it right away, when its done. That makes the community more happy because your more active in development, as opposed to waiting 2 years to drop features.
|
hm my first game just crashed 
|
I am Railgan#5611 if someone wants to play with me 
|
runs silky smooth on medium with zero lag on my 4 year old $1000 laptop. i don't mind learning games as long as there exists a known sweetspot where the game will be 90% fun and 10% learning. Because i don't know if that sweet spot will happen i'll be back in a year. Good Luck To Artillery in making the game!
On August 27 2016 02:33 lestye wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 02:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 27 2016 01:17 lestye wrote:On August 27 2016 01:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 27 2016 00:56 _Spartak_ wrote:
I think this was one of the main problems for SC2 against LoL and DotA 2. adding units fucks balance. no F2P RTS has ever been commercially viable in the genre's 20+ year history. SC2 has come closer to offering "pay as you go elements" than any other RTS title with Nova and that slimey Zerg leader guy for $5. you could also criticize ATVI for not using the WoW model... $15/month and $50 expansions. AAA MOBAs , AAA MMOs , and AAA RTSs have different revenue models. I don't think that's fair to say since F2P has only been part of the market for the last 5 years. I don't think that was his point regardless, his point was that microtransactions gives them to incentive to keep adding stuff to the game, as opposed to holding off implementing features/units to put in the back of the box of an expansion. SC2 has microtransactions. off topic discussion about ATVI making money on RTS games. + Show Spoiler +
let's compare LoL to WoW then. Riot has failed with LoL because WoW made more money an an annual basis. Riot should be charging $15 a month just like WoW and have $50 expansions every 2 years just like WoW. reductio ad absurdum.
ATVI has done a better job than any one generating revenue on an RTS game. the AAA RTS no longer exists because no one can generate enough revenue to justify a AAA investment. if you are going to say "they did wrong" you're going ot have to create a comprehensive proposal otherwise you are just a polemicist.
You missed the point entirely. It's about being able to support the game instead of holding back stuff for an expansion release. Like, instead of releasing in-game tournaments for a 40 dollar expansion packs, you release it right away, when its done. That makes the community more happy because your more active in development, as opposed to waiting 2 years to drop features.
RTS games can't have MOBA style microtransactions due to game mechanics. never have. never will. ATVI knows how to generate revenue on AAA titles better than anyone and SC2 has done that. RTS fans will have to live with the fact that they are too few in # to warrant any more AAA titles from ATVI. AoE and C&C makers attempted the F2P MOBA style microtransactions route and failed badly. ATVI is smart enough to not even try.
ATVI is smarter than MS and EA which is why they make more money on RTS games with better revenue models than either of those other companies.
|
|
|
This game could be interesting if it incentivises you to spread your units all over the map and multitask. But with the way it is now - keeping your army together - it feels too much like a MOBA.
|
On August 27 2016 04:45 AndAgain wrote:
This game could be interesting if it incentivises you to spread your units all over the map and multitask. But with the way it is now - keeping your army together - it feels too much like a MOBA.
Actually thats what you see high level players doing.
Also dev on stream just hinted at having modes where you do "more than just control armies"- hoping for a basebuilding mode in some kind of fun way.
|
|
|
On August 27 2016 04:45 AndAgain wrote:
This game could be interesting if it incentivises you to spread your units all over the map and multitask. But with the way it is now - keeping your army together - it feels too much like a MOBA.
When I played the game I felt like I was just a-moving w/ a slow army forward --> Kiting a bit back --> A moving a bit more.
And when I watch the dev's streams, even though he looks reasonable skilled in terms of mechanics, I just don't see anything that makes me wow that looks cool. I really wanna practice so I can do that as well.
And I believe that feeling is very essential for a player vs player game that wants a sustainable playerbase.
|
Part of the beauty of say Starcraft is that you have all these units you have to make to not lose the game, but then they're otherwise sitting idle if your enemy doesn't attack. So you have this huge resource and to really get an advantage you need to find interesting ways to make use of that resource like raiding, prodding, attacking undefended areas, etc. Otherwise you're spending a big resource and getting no value out of it for an extended period of time.
The camps + titans seem to really hurt that (and you see this in WC3 too really) because now your army resource is never idle and it has a purpose that's entirely different from interacting with your opponent in interesting ways. Any action with the army has to be weighed against the opportunity cost of taking camps.
|
On August 27 2016 05:32 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 04:45 AndAgain wrote:
This game could be interesting if it incentivises you to spread your units all over the map and multitask. But with the way it is now - keeping your army together - it feels too much like a MOBA. When I played the game I felt like I was just a-moving w/ a slow army forward --> Kiting a bit back --> A moving a bit more. And when I watch the dev's streams, even though he looks reasonable skilled in terms of mechanics, I just don't see anything that makes me wow that looks cool. I really wanna practice so I can do that as well.And I believe that feeling is very essential for a player vs player game that wants a sustainable playerbase.
The game is not even released though; those kind of things need to be developed.
And as I said, higher level players are already splitting and doing multi-pronged attacks.
Though to be honest the most annoying thing for me is the huge PvE part. I would love to have some other economy mode.
|
Any action with the army has to be weighed against the opportunity cost of taking camps.
I am also of the belief that PvE mechanics belongs in the future when it comes player vs player games. If you want to kill monsters then go play a singleplayer or a co-op game. If we look at LOL for instance I think the only thing junglers enjoy about the role is the ganking-part. And I also believe that the reason midlane is the most popular role is because its the role where you interact directly with your opponent the most plus you also have some room to roam and impact other positions.
Usually PvP games become succesful when there is a direct interaction between you and your opponent. Laning in MOBA's should not be seen as a PvE only interaction, but rather as a way to incentivize players to get close to each other so they can attack and kill each other.
However, there are clearly better ways to reward players for attacking each other in a more "direct way". Thus in my opinion the addition of neutral camps is a backwards steps when it comes to RTS/MOBA-design.
The game is not even released though; those kind of things need to be developed.
And they had years to develop them, but apparently they think the current type of "micro" is satisfactory. Otherwise they would have prioritized it higher.
If they thought the game-speed would be too slow, they would have increased the movement speed by 20-50% years ago.
And I am pretty sure that the pathing still prevents injured units from being moved back if focus fired (because friendly units block each other). This effectively prevents the most basic (and yet interesting) form of RTS micro.
So if they thought "basic RTS micro" was as essential as I do, then they would either not have implemented this pathing in the first place or they would have allocated the majority of their programming ressources onto improving it. Because I don't believe an RTS game can be succesful without individual unit micro being heavily rewarded.
If the developers were on the same line of game-design thinking as I am, they would also have begun by making core units similar to Stimmed Marines and they would have made it normal to control 30-60 units at once.
And I have seen too many "It's just beta/alpha w/e - don't be too harsh" arguments from people defending certain design decisions a development team has made. And they have been wrong every single time because they don't realize that some types of design decisions won't be changed - regardless of how much time there is before the game will be released.
Like they would never have added that type of design in the first place if the developer didn't believe that would create the best type of gameplay.
|
On August 27 2016 05:47 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Any action with the army has to be weighed against the opportunity cost of taking camps. I am also of the belief that PvE mechanics belongs in the future when it comes player vs player games. If you want to kill monsters then go play a singleplayer or a co-op game. Usually PvP games become succesful when there is a direct interaction between you and your opponent. Laning in MOBA's should not be seen as a PvE only interaction, but rather as a way to incentivize players to get close to each other so they can attack and kill each other. Thus in my opinion the addition of neutral camps is a backwards steps when it comes to RTS/MOBA-design.
The thing is that such mechanics can be good and interesting, but often aren't.
Take DotA2's jungle for instance. Because of it's location, the speed at which you clear it, how many heroes it can support (1) and other factors it does create an opportunity cost to doing things that aren't jungling, but it still balances towards interactions. Notably the opportunity cost *for* jungling is really low, TP scrolls and map layout means you're in a position to join fights quickly, stacking means the cost for not farming a camp can be mitigated and you have the opportunity to directly gain the same resources you would gain from the jungle anyways.
|
For the people who are playing: what is the average gametime?
I couldn't get a good answer on the developer stream.
|
On August 27 2016 05:56 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 05:47 Hider wrote:Any action with the army has to be weighed against the opportunity cost of taking camps. I am also of the belief that PvE mechanics belongs in the future when it comes player vs player games. If you want to kill monsters then go play a singleplayer or a co-op game. Usually PvP games become succesful when there is a direct interaction between you and your opponent. Laning in MOBA's should not be seen as a PvE only interaction, but rather as a way to incentivize players to get close to each other so they can attack and kill each other. Thus in my opinion the addition of neutral camps is a backwards steps when it comes to RTS/MOBA-design. The thing is that such mechanics can be good and interesting, but often aren't. Take DotA2's jungle for instance. Because of it's location, the speed at which you clear it, how many heroes it can support (1) and other factors it does create an opportunity cost to doing things that aren't jungling, but it still balances towards interactions. Notably the opportunity cost *for* jungling is really low, TP scrolls and map layout means you're in a position to join fights quickly, stacking means the cost for not farming a camp can be mitigated and you have the opportunity to directly gain the same resources you would gain from the jungle anyways.
Well in Dota 2, laning isnt a PVE experience, its you competing for the resources of a lane against your opponent. As well as the income in the jungle is makes map control and vision so important. It gives you reasons to be places instead of just pooling/5manning
In WC3, the camps are for you to get out of your base, leaving it vulnerable, while you go out and take the resources on the map instead of just pooling an army together. (Important distinction is that you're not going to take bases like you would in Starcraft, you're not getting a 3rd, and if you're a certain race, you're staying on 1-base). Also there's the interaction that you are vulnerable to attack while taking damage against creep in WC3.
In Heroes of the Storm, you're taking PVE objectives to help push the objective.
I think all 3 of these games handle PVE in a PVP game very well. PVE in a PVP game is fine when you're contesting for a certain resource, or if it spreads you out, makes you vulnerable and plays with opportunity cost. This guy is getting a jungle camp hoping to accomplish something, leaving this tower or whatever behind, so im gonna pressure it, etc.
|
I think all 3 of these games handle PVE in a PVP game very well. PVE in a PVP game is fine when you're contesting for a certain resource, or if it spreads you out, makes you vulnerable and plays with opportunity cost. This guy is getting a jungle camp hoping to accomplish something, leaving this tower or whatever behind, so im gonna pressure it, etc.
The PvE elements in those games definitely have a purpose. But personally I still believe that if you could add the same type of confrontations with the opponent without adding PvE elements in the first place, that you would create a more enjoyable player experience for most people.
For that reason I see the MOBA-solution as an old solution that could and should be improved upon from future game developers.
Increase the amount of direct interactions on a per-minute basis while using the "gained time" (that comes from not spending time killing neutral monsters) to reduce game-lenght.
8-15 minutes of average game lenght seems appropriate to me if its easy to find a game and if the "action" or interesting strategical decisions starts ASAP.
They said 25-35 minutes. Looks more like 30+ atm and it seems to go to at least 4th Titan
I also have no idea why they would design a game around that game-lenght. In games with a long draft and queue times of several minutes, surely the average game time needs to be 18-20+ minutes. But this isn't the case here.
|
On August 27 2016 05:57 lestye wrote:
For the people who are playing: what is the average gametime?
I couldn't get a good answer on the developer stream.
They said 25-35 minutes. Looks more like 30+ atm and it seems to go to at least 4th Titan
edit - they said it about the time as it is now. Also mentioned it's longer than they would like. I can't remember what words or if they described it with, so not sure what their ideal range is.
|
I've just finished my first game...
The first feeling wasn't very good
- I don't like the titans mechanic
- The production sounds kind of automathic
- You are almost forced to keep your army together
- Generally speaking it's like an rts in which you just have to make some moves with pre-provided units and moba mechanics
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
