EPTGuardians of Atlas - Page 46
| Forum Index > General Games |
Development ended, game appears to be dead. https://forums.artillery.com/discussion/911/end-of-development -Jinro | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17545 Posts
| ||
|
TelecoM
United States10727 Posts
| ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On September 10 2016 00:14 Incognoto wrote: Yeah, well, that's totally like, your opinion, man. We are legion. | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey443 Posts
On September 10 2016 00:36 GGzerG wrote: Armies of Exigo was pretty sweet, RTS Genre just needs to clone BW and change a few things / build upon that, and see what happens. Noone will play it. People who don't play SC2 would not play a new SC-like RTS just because there are a few minor changes. Armies of Exigo is a good example what would happen actually. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17545 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On September 10 2016 00:14 _Spartak_ wrote: Why don't you think Atlas isn't going that route anymore? It looks to me like it a very close to the game you are describing. Granted, it doesn't have base building but that wasn't a big part of WC3 anyway. I never played wc3, but just from watching it a bit GoA isn't very close to that imo. If you just watch at it from the most basic lvl it might look close (heroes + army) but i don't think that is really true. For one i think heroes in GoA aren't developed at all as a concept, maybe they will change that, maybe not | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey443 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Also smaller armies if the map stays at that size, i wouldn't mind removing every massable unit in the game and design new units which are more impactful on their own but less massable. What also would be fun is less "safe" ressource spots. You only really can invade a few spots at the beginning and most is simply passive farming. | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey443 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
If there are enough ressource spots on the map i don't think this is a huge issue. But it maybe allows for more pokes and engagements | ||
|
ahw
Canada1099 Posts
On September 10 2016 01:09 _Spartak_ wrote: I think that is intentional to make the armies and not heroes the focus of the game. By "slightly weaker scaling heroes" I thought ahw was talking about making heroes weaker, maybe I was wrong. I meant in contrast to wc3: no blademaster and blade of attack being the entire race, no brewmaster 1v50 armies, undead playstyle revolving around coil Nova etc. The pinnacle of wc3 strategy became about abusing the map to get ridiculous items at absurd timings. Heroes should be valuable strong units that enable strategies and reward skillful tactics. Having them scale reasonably is good. | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
On September 10 2016 04:13 ahw wrote: I meant in contrast to wc3: no blademaster and blade of attack being the entire race, no brewmaster 1v50 armies, undead playstyle revolving around coil Nova etc. The pinnacle of wc3 strategy became about abusing the map to get ridiculous items at absurd timings. Heroes should be valuable strong units that enable strategies and reward skillful tactics. Having them scale reasonably is good. While the Blademaster was and obviously still is overpowered, I don't think stronger heroes is a bad thing. It leads to flashy and impressive plays, which is good for the spectator (if there is one). And since competitive games are largely about the audience, it should be important. That being said, it's also important not to go too far. The Blademaster is always the first example because he hurts like hell, but the Demon Hunter can definitely be a one man army too. WC3's biggest problem wasn't necessary skills, but stats. Agility heroes should never be able to tank more than strength heroes; yet a DK's health will fall a lot faster than a BM's. That's the real issue. If the BM hurt like hell but was somewhat of a glass cannon, he'd be a lot more balanced. Atlas could likely learn a lot from hero design with WC3. The way it is now, I think heroes are perhaps not too weak, but at least too bland. Two skills is not enough, it feels extremely underwhelming. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On September 09 2016 10:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote: lots and lots of multibillion dollar franchises. http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Best_selling_game_franchises I'm talking about getting ATVI to commit resources to RTS. Their best guys are not going to work on RTS. They've got bigger fish to fry. Where oh where is Rob Pardo now? check the role call on ATVI's investor page and you'll see a line up of multi-billion dollar franchises and Overwatch is not included in that list. Overwatch is well on its way to becoming another multibillion dollar ATVI franchise. and after 18 years SC can't even compile $1 billion in cumulative all time sales. Overwatch already blew every Blizz RTS release ever out of the water with both guns. You said "multibillion dollar games", now your changing it to "franchises"... And those are how many products sold, not how much made in sales. Regardless, sales typically equate to games that are either established franichises before gaming (such as Star Wars), or games that have been nearly unanimously praised. How many of those franchises on the "at least 100 million" section did not receive user reviews of at least 9.0 at some point? None of them. Besides, your numbers are skewed, and the site you linked destroys your whole theory. Have a look: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Best_selling_Blizzard_games What is the #1 selling Blizzard franchise (as of the date of that site that your using your statistics from)? That's right, StarCraft! Overwatch blew up all Blizzards records, what's your point? Overwatch has a WAY WAY WAY better reception than StarCraft 2 ever did as well. On September 09 2016 10:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the genre does not generate enough money to buy his interest. if Pardo designs another game you can be damn sure it won't be an RTS. This is COMPLETE heresay. You have no evidence supporting this, and Pardo has actually DISCUSSED future RTS's. So there's evidence completely AGAINST your theories. Blizzard is even working on reviving BW, why would they do that if they didn't see any money? You make absolutely no sense. Regardless, RTS was always a niche genre. It was NEVER the most popular, it was never "where the money is". Blizzard has always been good at making money in the genre tehy choose. They made money in RTS when the only other companies that EVER had RTS success can be counted on one hand. They made MMO a smash hit when MMO's were not very popular. Action RPG barely existed before them. They made a successful MOBA in a market flooded with MOBA's. They turned online CCG's in to a huge craze with Hearthstone. Now their working on turning FPS in to something bigger than just a game. Except for FPS and MOBA, every other one of their major properties was in a genre that "does not generate enough money to buy interest". Which means your message is false, they don't go by the books, they don't pick a genre that is "safe", they pick a genre that is "untapped but has potential"! There's evidence of Blizzard disagreeing with basically every one of your sentiments, yet you still believe it. W/e, more power to you. In the end, you focus way too much on the wrong things. You focus on "market profitability" - that's the exact focus that has led to the biggest failures in gaming in the last 15 years. Activision, EA - how many mistakes have they made by focusing on "market profitability" rather than a good game? Dozens. How many series did they make with decreasing reviews each iteration? Dozens. How many series that were extremely popular did they completely burn to the ground with the tactics focusing on profitability over a good game? Dozens. How many times have they released a game before it was "ready"? Dozens. How many times have any of those companies released a game that wasnt ready and did not have it explode in their face? None. Alternatively, how many games had the #1 priority to make a SOLID GAME, rather than MARKET PROFITABILITY, then made MILLIONS? Most of the biggest games out right now did EXACTLY that - DOTA, LoL, CS, Rocket League to name a few off the top of my head. If you make a solid game, the sales come. That's the thing Activision and EA never understood. Blizzard understands this too, although they have been pushed in to certain things & lost their way from time to time. When they "take the time" to "release it when it's ready", they knock it out of the park (like Overwatch). When they don't, and when they claim a game will be out in march 2016 after the "longest beta ever" then rush to release it EARLY after doing a major overhaul of mechanics with under 2 weeks of beta testing? It fails like LotV, and pushes away the fans of the game to other games who showed more love & caring for what they create. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On September 09 2016 10:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the genre does not generate enough money to buy his interest. if Pardo designs another game you can be damn sure it won't be an RTS. that said, DK is really, really good. He is just not a once in a generation type of talent. we're lucky to have DK designing SC2. in 5 years the RTS genre won't generate enough income to continue to buy his interest and he'll move on to bigger and better things. I've heard many know-it-all game designers claim DK should be fired. In a few years DK will fire us... because we don't spend enough money to buy his interest. David Kim is not "really, really good". I have my self-respect, and one thing you will never get me to admit is that DK is a good or even competent designer... | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
tedster
984 Posts
On September 10 2016 00:58 The_Red_Viper wrote: I never played wc3, but just from watching it a bit GoA isn't very close to that imo. If you just watch at it from the most basic lvl it might look close (heroes + army) but i don't think that is really true. For one i think heroes in GoA aren't developed at all as a concept, maybe they will change that, maybe not The way the games play out, armies + hero are designed to have approximately as many activated abilities as a MOBA hero around the midgame, and slightly more in the lategame. This is by design, to make it possible to control most aspects of your army effectively from a single control group if needed without having to split off individual caster hotkeys (though you should still do this). By necessity this does weaken the hero mechanic quite a bit, though some heroes still play out very similarly to War3 heroes (Grath, Hydros, Eris, Alder) in terms of impact on a fight - the good players often split heroes off to perform critical roles and pick off key units. What heroes can't do that they could in War3 is snowball a game single-handedly. It's not really possible for a hero to "get out of hand" and carry an army, even if they are extremely relevant at their tasks. Ultimates are still very game changing, but there are actual things you can do about heroes in Atlas and that wasn't always the case in War3. In terms of how games play out, however, there's a lot of similarity to War3 Reign of Chaos teamplay and Atlas. There is a similar amount of jockeying for positioning, map control, wombo-combo teamplay, and communication that goes into a game as there was in 2v2s for War3, especially since heroes (while super important) lose a little of their insaneo power the more "stuff" that is on the battlefield in both games. I think for people that really enjoyed War3 teamplay, Atlas scratches many of the same itches. It's not like there was really any econ management in War3 teams so the macro play in Atlas feels more involved overall than that game ever did, even if a lot of it seems hidden at first. I'm making these observations from a competitive/tournament player's perspective, so I'm not really sure how it feels at a more casual level. Base building and durdling around on the map were probably a lot more common in that environment in War3 and it's a little harder to win while durdling in Atlas (since you've got timed objectives that progress a team toward victory) in the current game mode, but they're planning to implement additional game modes and maps that might make favor that style of play as well, so I don't think that will be the case forever. | ||
|
tedster
984 Posts
On September 10 2016 05:07 Spaylz wrote: While the Blademaster was and obviously still is overpowered, I don't think stronger heroes is a bad thing. It leads to flashy and impressive plays, which is good for the spectator (if there is one). And since competitive games are largely about the audience, it should be important. That being said, it's also important not to go too far. The Blademaster is always the first example because he hurts like hell, but the Demon Hunter can definitely be a one man army too. WC3's biggest problem wasn't necessary skills, but stats. Agility heroes should never be able to tank more than strength heroes; yet a DK's health will fall a lot faster than a BM's. That's the real issue. If the BM hurt like hell but was somewhat of a glass cannon, he'd be a lot more balanced. Atlas could likely learn a lot from hero design with WC3. The way it is now, I think heroes are perhaps not too weak, but at least too bland. Two skills is not enough, it feels extremely underwhelming. I would honestly like to see one additional skill per hero. I don't know what this would do to game balance but I think it would make heroes feel slightly more "special". It might make the overall gameplay less fun, however. It's also worth considering that a hero's basic unit is kind of an extension of that hero, and typically adds "abilities" to that hero that scale with hero level. But we've kind of been conditioned to not look at heroes that way, and there are times you don't make many/any basic units over the course of a long game, thus losing some of that uniqueness. I think it would be fine if for the most part heroes could only deal so much damage with their basic abilities, since it's already a problem in some builds where heroes like Eris or Vex can pick off groups of basic units with no real counterplay assuming they are being carefully controlled. This can create some awkward balance challenges and while I feel they could be addressed it certainly isn't as easy as just adding a second, similarly-powerful basic to each hero. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17545 Posts
On September 10 2016 07:29 Spyridon wrote: You said "multibillion dollar games", now your changing it to "franchises"... And those are how many products sold, not how much made in sales. Regardless, sales typically equate to games that are either established franichises before gaming (such as Star Wars), or games that have been nearly unanimously praised. How many of those franchises on the "at least 100 million" section did not receive user reviews of at least 9.0 at some point? None of them. Besides, your numbers are skewed, and the site you linked destroys your whole theory. Have a look: http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Best_selling_Blizzard_games What is the #1 selling Blizzard franchise (as of the date of that site that your using your statistics from)? That's right, StarCraft! Overwatch blew up all Blizzards records, what's your point? Overwatch has a WAY WAY WAY better reception than StarCraft 2 ever did as well. This is COMPLETE heresay. You have no evidence supporting this, and Pardo has actually DISCUSSED future RTS's. So there's evidence completely AGAINST your theories. Blizzard is even working on reviving BW, why would they do that if they didn't see any money? You make absolutely no sense. Regardless, RTS was always a niche genre. It was NEVER the most popular, it was never "where the money is". Blizzard has always been good at making money in the genre tehy choose. They made money in RTS when the only other companies that EVER had RTS success can be counted on one hand. They made MMO a smash hit when MMO's were not very popular. Action RPG barely existed before them. They made a successful MOBA in a market flooded with MOBA's. They turned online CCG's in to a huge craze with Hearthstone. Now their working on turning FPS in to something bigger than just a game. Except for FPS and MOBA, every other one of their major properties was in a genre that "does not generate enough money to buy interest". Which means your message is false, they don't go by the books, they don't pick a genre that is "safe", they pick a genre that is "untapped but has potential"! There's evidence of Blizzard disagreeing with basically every one of your sentiments, yet you still believe it. W/e, more power to you. In the end, you focus way too much on the wrong things. You focus on "market profitability" - that's the exact focus that has led to the biggest failures in gaming in the last 15 years. Activision, EA - how many mistakes have they made by focusing on "market profitability" rather than a good game? Dozens. How many series did they make with decreasing reviews each iteration? Dozens. How many series that were extremely popular did they completely burn to the ground with the tactics focusing on profitability over a good game? Dozens. How many times have they released a game before it was "ready"? Dozens. How many times have any of those companies released a game that wasnt ready and did not have it explode in their face? None. Alternatively, how many games had the #1 priority to make a SOLID GAME, rather than MARKET PROFITABILITY, then made MILLIONS? Most of the biggest games out right now did EXACTLY that - DOTA, LoL, CS, Rocket League to name a few off the top of my head. If you make a solid game, the sales come. That's the thing Activision and EA never understood. Blizzard understands this too, although they have been pushed in to certain things & lost their way from time to time. When they "take the time" to "release it when it's ready", they knock it out of the park (like Overwatch). When they don't, and when they claim a game will be out in march 2016 after the "longest beta ever" then rush to release it EARLY after doing a major overhaul of mechanics with under 2 weeks of beta testing? It fails like LotV, and pushes away the fans of the game to other games who showed more love & caring for what they create. Starcraft is a franchise. its been around 18+ years. Sigaty stated nothing Blizz makes will compete with SC2 for the next 10 years. This means for multiplayer-RTS the Blizz games are producing enough revenue to justify 1 full release and 2 expansions across a 22 year time span. Blizzard's actions speak louder than your words. SC , as a franchise, still has not made $1 Billion. Lots of ATVI products have. Blizzard dedicates more resources to franchises that make more money. Blizzard has many many great RTS games and they have not generated the kind of revenue their other franchises have. As a result.... again.. ..we get 1 full game across a 22 year time span. If you are not satisfied with Blizzard's RTS offerings you are more than welcome to do what every consumer has the choice of doing... seek something better elsewhere. Artillery Games is one such company offering an alternative. Let's see what happens with this game. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
| ||
TokO
Norway577 Posts
In general, acknowledging the card game inspiration makes understanding the game a bit easier than looking purely through a moba or RTS lens. It's generally about developing a strong board state that can edge out the opponent. There is also a few aggro plays that focus on breaking down the enemy base really quickly. | ||
| ||
